The Plague of the Poor(tabletmag.com)
tabletmag.com
The Plague of the Poor
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/plague-poor-gutentag
179 comments
A lot of people already have had the virus though. From the article:
> During lockdowns, essential and frontline workers bore the brunt of COVID-19 cases while affluent professionals stayed home, teleworked, and ordered delivery. These workers were once called “heroes.” Now the Zoom class labels the same workers “anti-vaxxers” if they prefer to rely on the natural immunity many of them have already acquired from previous infections.
> During lockdowns, essential and frontline workers bore the brunt of COVID-19 cases while affluent professionals stayed home, teleworked, and ordered delivery. These workers were once called “heroes.” Now the Zoom class labels the same workers “anti-vaxxers” if they prefer to rely on the natural immunity many of them have already acquired from previous infections.
Getting vaccinated after successful recovery even improves immunity against Covid-19 reinfection. So there is a medical benefit in vaccinating the recovered.
Also, it is extremely hard to scientifically and politically account for recovery as proof of vaccination. In some European countries, it sort of works, when you have good standards on how exactly to determine and track infection and recovery. Even then there are tradeoffs, because the immunity after vaccination is much better studied and much more predictable.
Also, it is extremely hard to scientifically and politically account for recovery as proof of vaccination. In some European countries, it sort of works, when you have good standards on how exactly to determine and track infection and recovery. Even then there are tradeoffs, because the immunity after vaccination is much better studied and much more predictable.
No one is advocating for people to get infected, but many front line workers have already had COVID while they were doing their hero work. Since studies are now showing they have better immunity than those who have received a vaccination, it is foolish to have them vaccinate. If you've had Measles, you aren't required to get a vaccination, so there is a well established precedent.
The politicalization of the vaccine is foolish and unscientific.
The politicalization of the vaccine is foolish and unscientific.
The vaccine increases immunity even for people who have already been infected. It makes total sense to have them get vaccinated.
The goal isn't to have everyone reach a specific level of immunity. It's to get the highest possible level of immunity that is possible without taking on additional risks.
The goal isn't to have everyone reach a specific level of immunity. It's to get the highest possible level of immunity that is possible without taking on additional risks.
The vaccine increases immunity even for people who have already been infected. It makes total sense to have them get vaccinated.
Any risk is stupid if you already have better immunity than taking the vaccine. Once again, other diseases are handled exactly like this. Vaccine if you haven't had it, and no vaccine if you have. Doctors recognize that adding risk is a bad idea.
Any risk is stupid if you already have better immunity than taking the vaccine. Once again, other diseases are handled exactly like this. Vaccine if you haven't had it, and no vaccine if you have. Doctors recognize that adding risk is a bad idea.
[deleted]
> The politicalization of the vaccine is foolish and unscientific.
I think you're confusing cause and effect here. The politicization of the vaccine is the reason the government is now pushing vaccine mandates and such, not a reaction to it. If Fox News had spent the last year telling its viewers that seat belts make you sterile, the government would be raising fines and ramping up enforcement and generally adopting policies to force people to wear seat belts, right? And some of those policies would inevitably look like overreach, and people would be writing essays like this one complaining about that overreach.
I think you're confusing cause and effect here. The politicization of the vaccine is the reason the government is now pushing vaccine mandates and such, not a reaction to it. If Fox News had spent the last year telling its viewers that seat belts make you sterile, the government would be raising fines and ramping up enforcement and generally adopting policies to force people to wear seat belts, right? And some of those policies would inevitably look like overreach, and people would be writing essays like this one complaining about that overreach.
There are a lot of non fox news watchers that aren't getting the vaccine.
Both sides are to blame. I stand by my statement. Any politics directed at vaccines is foolish and unscientific. People should acknowledge that mistakes were made by the government and officials with their foolish statements. CNN and Fox are equal partners in the hysteria.
People need to remember the goal is to eliminate the threat, not get everyone vaccinated. These are two different things. Ignoring post-COVID immunity studies just makes officials look unscientific and doesn't contribute to the final goal. Being unscientific puts you at the same level as hucksters. Getting rid of health care workers that risked it all and put a huge strain on their families is just plain dumb and ungrateful. The idea they don't know the whole story is baffling.
People need to remember the goal is to eliminate the threat, not get everyone vaccinated. These are two different things. Ignoring post-COVID immunity studies just makes officials look unscientific and doesn't contribute to the final goal. Being unscientific puts you at the same level as hucksters. Getting rid of health care workers that risked it all and put a huge strain on their families is just plain dumb and ungrateful. The idea they don't know the whole story is baffling.
> People need to remember the goal is to eliminate the threat, not get everyone vaccinated.
For you perhaps, but some people have the terminal goal of avoiding vaccination, even if that increases the threat. That is why the government is doing anything and everything, including FUD, to push vaccines down peoples' throats. Their actions will always seem irrational if you ignore that.
For you perhaps, but some people have the terminal goal of avoiding vaccination, even if that increases the threat. That is why the government is doing anything and everything, including FUD, to push vaccines down peoples' throats. Their actions will always seem irrational if you ignore that.
0 logic in mandating vaccines as vaccinated still spread the virus.
So no benefit for anyone else than the wearer( if you will ) and mandating injections serves no purpose of protecting others.
The seatbelt actually does protect others. An unbuckled backseat passangers will smash a frontseat one in a collision.
The covid-19 shots do not protect other though.
Comparing seatbelts wearing to covid-19 vaccine is incredibly innacurate.
Vaccine mandates are now down the path of forbidding us to choose what we do with our own bodies.
This is a very, very dangerous path.
Punishing nurses that have aquired immunity via natural infection will hopefully be considered criminal in a not too far away future. Fortunately there are very few places in the world that thinks that doing so is a good idea.
Vaccine mandates are now down the path of forbidding us to choose what we do with our own bodies.
This is a very, very dangerous path.
Punishing nurses that have aquired immunity via natural infection will hopefully be considered criminal in a not too far away future. Fortunately there are very few places in the world that thinks that doing so is a good idea.
FUD just pushes people away. If you cannot act in a truthful manner you legitimize their beliefs. When you know better and give up on truth, you lose.
The single simplest summation of the concept of evil is "the end justifies the means".
The single simplest summation of the concept of evil is "the end justifies the means".
> summation of the concept of evil
That's a rather strong way to describe someone who refuses to implement a policy you like.
You might be right, a natural immunity exemption might be sound policy. I personally tend to agree. But you can't make the case for it by pretending that opposition to it is based in ignorance or evil, if the opposition is due to the concern that people who would abuse it and the result would be more deaths.
That's a rather strong way to describe someone who refuses to implement a policy you like.
You might be right, a natural immunity exemption might be sound policy. I personally tend to agree. But you can't make the case for it by pretending that opposition to it is based in ignorance or evil, if the opposition is due to the concern that people who would abuse it and the result would be more deaths.
I can at the point they deviate from the science and truth of the situation. When you concede truth, then you have no basis to implement a public policy. Emotion has no place in a fight against a disease and feeding the emotional argument of anti-vaxers with actual talking points is counterproductive. Fear of abuse is a poor argument because both solutions will be abused (fake vaccine cards are already a thing).
This sounds like a florid way of saying, "I saw a pro-vax lefty lie about something on TV the other day." Okay, feel free to ignore that one guy, but to argue against the vaccine mandate position generally you have to engage with the strongest arguments for it, not the weakest.
Ok, once again, I am arguing against mandating vaccines for people who already had COVID. The science and studies say they already have a better immunity than the vaccine. This lack of science is troubling. That is not an anti-vax position. Its a vax if you haven't had COVID and don't if you have. This is the same exact advice when talking about other diseases like measles.
The "both sides" arguments are total BS here. Fox News clearly entertains lies and factually untrue statements, while actively discouraging the vaccine.
You may not like that CNN endorses vaccination, but you'd be hard pressed to catch them in even a simple incorrect statement, much less an intentional lie, let alone at the same order of magnitude. It is hard not to endorse vaccination if you understand the science.
You may not like that CNN endorses vaccination, but you'd be hard pressed to catch them in even a simple incorrect statement, much less an intentional lie, let alone at the same order of magnitude. It is hard not to endorse vaccination if you understand the science.
Here's a prominent example of the left politicizing the vaccine...
"If Trump tells us to take it [The Vaccine], I won't" - Kamala Harris
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/2020-vp-debate-kamala-harris-o...
"If Trump tells us to take it [The Vaccine], I won't" - Kamala Harris
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/2020-vp-debate-kamala-harris-o...
What do you want to say with this link? That CBS lied that Harris said that? That Harris lied about her mistrust of Donald Trump and his administration?
She is clearly referring to the potential scenario back last year when Trump could be pushing for a vaccine to be approved and released that did not satisfy scientific medical standards, just to benefit in the election. That stance doesn't fit in a few seconds of sound bite, of course.
She is clearly referring to the potential scenario back last year when Trump could be pushing for a vaccine to be approved and released that did not satisfy scientific medical standards, just to benefit in the election. That stance doesn't fit in a few seconds of sound bite, of course.
> What do you want to say with this link?
That the left was also guilty of politicizing the vaccine & throwing doubting on its safety when it was politically expedient.
That the left was also guilty of politicizing the vaccine & throwing doubting on its safety when it was politically expedient.
CNN is not "the left".
Nor did Kamala Harris throw doubt on an existing and proven vaccine. No vaccine had been approved at that point, whereas Trump was blundering through the pandemic response in search of any way to save his political hide. There was a lot of evidence Trump put pressure on public health officials to downplay the pandemic and put people at more risk than necessary.
Trump had already been known to be conman before he was elected. Everything we learned since only put more details on that fact.
Nor did Kamala Harris throw doubt on an existing and proven vaccine. No vaccine had been approved at that point, whereas Trump was blundering through the pandemic response in search of any way to save his political hide. There was a lot of evidence Trump put pressure on public health officials to downplay the pandemic and put people at more risk than necessary.
Trump had already been known to be conman before he was elected. Everything we learned since only put more details on that fact.
> Nor did Kamala Harris throw doubt on an existing and proven vaccine
They did exist, were 6+ months and several stages into trials & were given temporary authorization only 2 months latter.
She fomented fear & distrust about the safety of vaccines to score talking points in a debate. Not sure why you think she should get a free pass.
They did exist, were 6+ months and several stages into trials & were given temporary authorization only 2 months latter.
She fomented fear & distrust about the safety of vaccines to score talking points in a debate. Not sure why you think she should get a free pass.
You are completely lying. The vaccines weren't approved yet, end of story.
Trump admitted in interviews with Bob Woodward that he was lying about the pandemic. What more proof do you need for him to be completely untrustworthy on the topic?
Trump admitted in interviews with Bob Woodward that he was lying about the pandemic. What more proof do you need for him to be completely untrustworthy on the topic?
> You are completely lying
About what?
> The vaccines weren't approved yet, end of story.
They weren't fully approved until about 6 weeks ago. They had gone through several massive trials and government approvals when she implied the vaccines were unsafe a year ago on national television.
About what?
> The vaccines weren't approved yet, end of story.
They weren't fully approved until about 6 weeks ago. They had gone through several massive trials and government approvals when she implied the vaccines were unsafe a year ago on national television.
That's egregiously misleading. In context she clearly said that she would take it, but only when scientists say it's safe, not when Trump says so.
(I will concede that, in implying that Trump would push people to get a vaccine before it was ready, she was wildly wrong.)
(I will concede that, in implying that Trump would push people to get a vaccine before it was ready, she was wildly wrong.)
> I will concede that, in implying that Trump would push people to get a vaccine before it was ready, she was wildly wrong.
Exactly, she (the left) also politicized the vaccine. QED
Exactly, she (the left) also politicized the vaccine. QED
She wouldn't have needed to politicize health policy at all if Trump and his administration had shown a basic level of competence and honesty around that topic.
The fear that Trump might push an unproven, unsatisfactory vaccine, was legitimate. Doing so would have damaged the actual vaccination campaign immensely.
The fear that Trump might push an unproven, unsatisfactory vaccine, was legitimate. Doing so would have damaged the actual vaccination campaign immensely.
It's simply not possible to track "natural immunity" in a suitable way to protect the public.
Also, while "natural immunity" may be better in some cases, it is much more unpredictable. We can't even tell for how long that natural immunity is good enough at all.
Also, while "natural immunity" may be better in some cases, it is much more unpredictable. We can't even tell for how long that natural immunity is good enough at all.
> It's simply not possible to track "natural immunity" in a suitable way to protect the public.
Why? Germany and many other countries don't differentiate between forms of immunity.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-require-proof-c...
Why? Germany and many other countries don't differentiate between forms of immunity.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-require-proof-c...
Here is a point I'll concede to the skeptics. By my interpretation, our health system is dysfunctional to the point that it can't reliably and practically collect immunity information in a way that's useful to the immunization effort. I have no interest in defending that.
However, given the dysfunction in our system, and given that hybrid immunity seems much better than either vaccine-induced or disease induced[1], the decision to require vaccines for everybody does make sense.
[1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj2258
However, given the dysfunction in our system, and given that hybrid immunity seems much better than either vaccine-induced or disease induced[1], the decision to require vaccines for everybody does make sense.
[1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj2258
> By my interpretation, our health system is dysfunctional to the point that it can't reliably and practically collect immunity information in a way that's useful to the immunization effort.
Wouldn't this apply to getting a vaccine, what makes tracking a diagnostic test so much more difficult? People could just have a photo of their positive test, just like they have a photo of their vaccine card...
Wouldn't this apply to getting a vaccine, what makes tracking a diagnostic test so much more difficult? People could just have a photo of their positive test, just like they have a photo of their vaccine card...
Considering fake vaccine cards are already making the rounds, I doubt the positive test is easier to fake.
Looking at my vaccine card, there is nothing special like a ID number or even a signature from a doctor.
The stickers for each shot have the name of the vaccine and a lot #, so that might be the tough part, but the lot numbers are screwy. The first one is a ###A##-#A sequence and the second one is a ###A##A sequence. Not sure if there is a national tracking database on that part. No barcode for easy scanning so it probably isn't checkable.
My Dad's testing cards (The VA was doing a test for every appointment so he got tested three times in two weeks because he was having a non-COVID related issue) had a doctor's signature and the results.
Looking at my vaccine card, there is nothing special like a ID number or even a signature from a doctor.
The stickers for each shot have the name of the vaccine and a lot #, so that might be the tough part, but the lot numbers are screwy. The first one is a ###A##-#A sequence and the second one is a ###A##A sequence. Not sure if there is a national tracking database on that part. No barcode for easy scanning so it probably isn't checkable.
My Dad's testing cards (The VA was doing a test for every appointment so he got tested three times in two weeks because he was having a non-COVID related issue) had a doctor's signature and the results.
I think large parts of the faction shouting about how unfair it is to expect people with previous infection to be vaccinated would also shout about the German policy of requiring a booster shot 6 months after the infection, at least that's my impression from how they argue here on HN.
So far, in the US, last I heard Pfizer requires a booster. We haven't been notified about Moderna but they might not require it. I assume that the initial studies on immunity are still tracking and will have some recommendation on what people with a previous infection should do. I would hope people follow that guidance.
Note: My last Moderna shot was in Feb, and its been radio silence and we passed the six month mark and are about to pass the eight month mark. I would hope they get done with whatever evaluation they are doing soon.
Note: My last Moderna shot was in Feb, and its been radio silence and we passed the six month mark and are about to pass the eight month mark. I would hope they get done with whatever evaluation they are doing soon.
Isn’t it just easier (and with virtually no risk) to require people to vaccinate rather than debate over who did/did not actually have COVID?
Antibody tests exist. I’m not in any way antivax, but it makes no sense why people who already had COVID should be required to receive a vaccine instead of just proving they have antibodies.
This kind of illogical policy gives fuel to antivaxers.
This kind of illogical policy gives fuel to antivaxers.
What's the difference in cost to the organization giving the shots or the antibody tests? My expectation is that they're about the same. If that's true, it's easier and more certain to just require vaccination.
Also, this article provides some arguments based more on biology. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...
Also, this article provides some arguments based more on biology. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/prior-infection-vs-v...
You can test for "antibodies". But the question of "is this patient immune from Covid-19" is a lot harder to answer and especially to standardize.
There is such a thing as testing for neutralizing antibodies by testing the antibodies against the virus directly. But in general, all of the relevant tests seem to be more expensive and harder to standardize.
Every human body creates its own set of antibodies against the virus (or the vaccine). Starting from different strains of the virus, the potential for uncertainty is too great.
There is such a thing as testing for neutralizing antibodies by testing the antibodies against the virus directly. But in general, all of the relevant tests seem to be more expensive and harder to standardize.
Every human body creates its own set of antibodies against the virus (or the vaccine). Starting from different strains of the virus, the potential for uncertainty is too great.
> potential for uncertainty is too great
Too great for what? Even with 2 jabs, the immunity is <90% against Delta and research shows post-covid immunity is more effective.
Too great for what? Even with 2 jabs, the immunity is <90% against Delta and research shows post-covid immunity is more effective.
You are overestimating the "research shows" part, and no research shows that "natural immunity" is achieving a higher than 90% immunity against any infection.
Nor is it clear who actually has a "more effective" or even "sufficiently effective" immunity, given that the infection could be up to a year or more ago, and almost nobody knows exactly what strain they got. And no, you can't tell any of that easily, reliably or cheaply by antibody testing.
Proof of vaccination is the cheapest and most reliable proof of a reasonable chance of immunity.
Nor is it clear who actually has a "more effective" or even "sufficiently effective" immunity, given that the infection could be up to a year or more ago, and almost nobody knows exactly what strain they got. And no, you can't tell any of that easily, reliably or cheaply by antibody testing.
Proof of vaccination is the cheapest and most reliable proof of a reasonable chance of immunity.
So if it costs a company the same, then workers can take medicine they don't need that has a risk to save someone a buck? How about we stick with science instead of profits?
[deleted]
No it's not easier because my employees will quit
How do you define antivax? Pretty sure you would be defined as an antivaxxer by most people as a result of your opinion that some people don't need to get vaccines
So, if you have post-infection immunity against virus that you can prove (test blood reactivity against virus protein), and it's likely better than typical 2 doses (research shows), you should still be legally required to take 2 jabs even though there are often side effects, even serious ones?
Not OP, but if arguing against it is anti-vaxx, then I guess you should call me anti-vaxx and I'll call you unreasonable.
Not OP, but if arguing against it is anti-vaxx, then I guess you should call me anti-vaxx and I'll call you unreasonable.
That's a really bad way to define ant-vax since that would encompass a lot of people following accepted practices with the measles vaccine along with some others.
Anti-vaxers hate all vaccines. Most of this thread is about following actual science and practices used for other vaccines. If you've had it, then don't get the vaccine, otherwise get the vaccine.
Anti-vaxers hate all vaccines. Most of this thread is about following actual science and practices used for other vaccines. If you've had it, then don't get the vaccine, otherwise get the vaccine.
I agree with you, but society has recently decided to label anyone with these beliefs as an anti-vaxxer, so we'll have to get used to the new terminology
It's not about whether the individual "needs" the vaccines, but rather about rules a society can live by.
And those who argue the most don't really argue about "they don't need the vaccine", but rather assume the vaccine is much bigger risk or damage than is at all reasonable. And that, yes, puts you very close to the "anti-vaxx" bubble.
And those who argue the most don't really argue about "they don't need the vaccine", but rather assume the vaccine is much bigger risk or damage than is at all reasonable. And that, yes, puts you very close to the "anti-vaxx" bubble.
[deleted]
People seem to have completely forgotten the difference between circulating antibodies and immune cells. If somebody had Covid-19 a while ago and didn't have exposure to it they may still have immune cells but no circulating antibodies.
There is always a risk with vaccination as with any medication. It's small, but why take it? Taking a vaccine to make other people feel better is emotional and not scientific. There is no debate, there are blood tests. The same logic has been applied to measles.
You'd find that judging an individual's immunity by a vague notion of prior infection with Covid-19 is probably riskier than the vaccine.
Comirnaty had hundreds of millions of doses administered so far, and maybe - maybe - one woman died of myocarditis. This is nothing to potentially hundreds of thousands of prevented fatalities, much less the unpleasant to severe bouts of Covid-19.
Comirnaty had hundreds of millions of doses administered so far, and maybe - maybe - one woman died of myocarditis. This is nothing to potentially hundreds of thousands of prevented fatalities, much less the unpleasant to severe bouts of Covid-19.
How about judging by blood reactivity to virus protein in an ELISA test? [1]
Why is it riskier and to whom?
[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/141777/download
Why is it riskier and to whom?
[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/141777/download
This kind of testing isn't exactly cheap and it is hard to standardize because of all the variables and the fickleness of the process. The one you link is specific to one particular laboratory. These tests also tend to fail a few weeks or months after the infection.
Nor does it actually prove any immunity against disease. You can only assume that these antibodies probe prior contact to the virus and that this prior contact resulted in a robust response. The strength of the immunity cannot be inferred from such titres...
Nor does it actually prove any immunity against disease. You can only assume that these antibodies probe prior contact to the virus and that this prior contact resulted in a robust response. The strength of the immunity cannot be inferred from such titres...
It's expensive, so noone should have the option even if they pay for it? (friend paid about 20€)
It can have false negatives, making people needlessly take a vaccine, so everyone should take the vaccine in the name of equality?
Vaccine certificates neither prove you actually got the vaccine (though highly likely), nor do they prove any immunity against disease (though fairly likely).
With this level of arguments, I can argue noone should be permitted to take the vaccine.
It can have false negatives, making people needlessly take a vaccine, so everyone should take the vaccine in the name of equality?
Vaccine certificates neither prove you actually got the vaccine (though highly likely), nor do they prove any immunity against disease (though fairly likely).
With this level of arguments, I can argue noone should be permitted to take the vaccine.
There have been rigorous studies that correlate the specific vaccine with the specific desired outcome of immunity.
You probably can't understand (and don't want to) why that is not the case for people who got infected at some unknown random point in the past and with an unknown, random variant of the Virus. And I don't care to explain it to you.
And you probably also don't want to understand why those lab tests aren't designed, regulated or approved as a proof of immunity. To be rigorous enough, probably every single lab would have to do control studies to find out if their tests predict immunity against reinfection.
You probably can't understand (and don't want to) why that is not the case for people who got infected at some unknown random point in the past and with an unknown, random variant of the Virus. And I don't care to explain it to you.
And you probably also don't want to understand why those lab tests aren't designed, regulated or approved as a proof of immunity. To be rigorous enough, probably every single lab would have to do control studies to find out if their tests predict immunity against reinfection.
I hope you expect every single vaccine production lab to do control studies on vaccine effectiveness.
Otherwise you're just arguing with double standards trying to console insecurity.
Otherwise you're just arguing with double standards trying to console insecurity.
Well, there’s a risk with the blood draw as well. It’s also small.
That's not even in the same realm.
Pretty much. There are some indications that myocarditis, the most serious, but very rare and even more rarely fatal complication of the mRNA vaccines, is caused by accidental intravenous injection of the vaccine.
They are not the same. But the "risk" from the vaccines does seem negligible compared to almost anything else.
I don't have a large social circle. I know of 2 vaccine related deaths (stroke), 2 vaccine related hospitalizations (heart issues), and one person now with tinnitus soon after the vaccine. Is the vaccine a better option than COVID? Data says yes (unless maybe for younger people, especially males). Is the vaccine 100% safe? No.
Sorry but that's impossible. FIVE vaccine related deaths/issues in your small social circle?
Next you are going to tell me you know of a vaccine-related car crash.
Please revisit your priors or who you put trust in, as they might as well lie.
Next you are going to tell me you know of a vaccine-related car crash.
Please revisit your priors or who you put trust in, as they might as well lie.
I don't know which vaccine each took. My dad's coworker had a stoke and died 2 days after getting the vaccine, two of my wife's brothers were the ones with heart issues. My daughter's bf's friends mom also had a stroke 2 days later. A friend now has tinnitus.
Not sure what else to tell you. The math suggests this is unlikely. But here it is.
Edit: also, nice edit changing it from "next I'll tell you that car accidents are marked as COVID deaths." I didn't say that and have no data on that so I appreciate you changing it.
Not sure what else to tell you. The math suggests this is unlikely. But here it is.
Edit: also, nice edit changing it from "next I'll tell you that car accidents are marked as COVID deaths." I didn't say that and have no data on that so I appreciate you changing it.
Odds of death from AstraZenaca are 1 in 1 million. Let's take odds of the event of having serious complications to be 1/100,000 just to be more skeptical.
The odds that 5 people in a row have such serious side effect is 1/10^25. That is equivalent to tossing 83 coins in a row and getting all heads.
Which is more likelier. 1/10^25 or that you have false information regarding this. : )
The odds that 5 people in a row have such serious side effect is 1/10^25. That is equivalent to tossing 83 coins in a row and getting all heads.
Which is more likelier. 1/10^25 or that you have false information regarding this. : )
I'm pro vaccine, and am convinced that the benefits of the vaccine absolutely eclipse the risks, but your math is so horrendously wrong here. Delete this.
Edit, here's some corrections:
This isn't 5 people in a row who had issues, it's 5 people within 4 nodes of distance in their social network. 4 nodes of distance is a lot of people, probably around 200,000 - 2,000,000.
The odds of having severe complications from the vaccine are about 1 in 100,000.
Therefore, everyone should expect to have 2-20 people within 4 nodes of their social network to have severe complications from the vaccine.
The mistake is not realizing the absolutely massive amount of people within 4 nodes of distance in your social network.
The other massive issue I see here is that there should also be somewhere around 500 covid deaths in the same pool of people that produced these 5 people with vaccine complications. The fact that they are focused on the 5 and not the 500 speaks heavily to their biases.
Keep in mind, all of this also assumes that what they're saying is 100% accurate, and these complications were definitely caused by the vaccine, and were not a coincidence. In truth, for every 1 person that has complications with the vaccine, 10-100x had the unlucky coincidence of something bad occurring that would have happened even if they hadn't gotten the vaccine.
Edit, here's some corrections:
This isn't 5 people in a row who had issues, it's 5 people within 4 nodes of distance in their social network. 4 nodes of distance is a lot of people, probably around 200,000 - 2,000,000.
The odds of having severe complications from the vaccine are about 1 in 100,000.
Therefore, everyone should expect to have 2-20 people within 4 nodes of their social network to have severe complications from the vaccine.
The mistake is not realizing the absolutely massive amount of people within 4 nodes of distance in your social network.
The other massive issue I see here is that there should also be somewhere around 500 covid deaths in the same pool of people that produced these 5 people with vaccine complications. The fact that they are focused on the 5 and not the 500 speaks heavily to their biases.
Keep in mind, all of this also assumes that what they're saying is 100% accurate, and these complications were definitely caused by the vaccine, and were not a coincidence. In truth, for every 1 person that has complications with the vaccine, 10-100x had the unlucky coincidence of something bad occurring that would have happened even if they hadn't gotten the vaccine.
> probably around 200,000 - 2,000,000
There are around 200 strokes per 100 000 people per year [1].
And number of "heart issues" is even more, only deaths because of heart issues are around ~170 per 100k people per year.
Correlation is not causation.
[1] https://www.world-stroke.org/assets/downloads/WSO_Global_Str...
There are around 200 strokes per 100 000 people per year [1].
And number of "heart issues" is even more, only deaths because of heart issues are around ~170 per 100k people per year.
Correlation is not causation.
[1] https://www.world-stroke.org/assets/downloads/WSO_Global_Str...
The numbers are probably even less favorable since the vaccinations have been skewed to the older population for much of the time.
> The fact that they are focused on the 5 and not the 500 speaks heavily to their biases.
Same guy as before. I know of two people who temporarily lost taste and I heard of one person who died from COVID, a coworker's uncle.
You can rationalize this however you like, but these are the cases I'm aware of.
Same guy as before. I know of two people who temporarily lost taste and I heard of one person who died from COVID, a coworker's uncle.
You can rationalize this however you like, but these are the cases I'm aware of.
You are wrong about what is meant by a "social circle". They are people that he socializes with.
Definition of social circle is "A social circle is a group of socially interconnected people". I doubt anyone would complain about having a small social circle if it contained 2M people. :)
Definition of social circle is "A social circle is a group of socially interconnected people". I doubt anyone would complain about having a small social circle if it contained 2M people. :)
[deleted]
No.
> My daughter's bf's friends mom
> My daughter's bf's friends mom
They said: "I don't have a large social circle." You need to read context a bit more carefully.
Sure, he said that, but only one of the complications are actually IN his social circle, the rest are two or more steps removed.
"My dad's coworker" - 2 steps
"my wife's brothers" - 2 steps
"My daughter's bf's friends mom" - 4 steps
"A friend" - 1 step
He might have a small social circle, but even a small circle is going to explode exponentially when you start hoping outwards. By the 4th jump, you're going to start seeing extreme numbers regardless of how small your personal social circle is.
"My dad's coworker" - 2 steps
"my wife's brothers" - 2 steps
"My daughter's bf's friends mom" - 4 steps
"A friend" - 1 step
He might have a small social circle, but even a small circle is going to explode exponentially when you start hoping outwards. By the 4th jump, you're going to start seeing extreme numbers regardless of how small your personal social circle is.
To put the calculation in perspective.
What you have calculated:
(using 4 deaths at 1e-6 odds, because it's simpler and still gives 10x better odds at 1e-24)
Taking 4 death row inmates, jabbing them with AstraZeneca and expecting all 4 of them to die.
What you have not calculated:
Jabbing 1e9 people, 10k of them developing serious issues (expected prior) and there being a multi-hop connection between 5 of them. Two of them actually being brothers (familial clustering), and some with issues likely more prevalent so not even from the 10k group (1/1e5 cutoff).
What you have calculated:
(using 4 deaths at 1e-6 odds, because it's simpler and still gives 10x better odds at 1e-24)
Taking 4 death row inmates, jabbing them with AstraZeneca and expecting all 4 of them to die.
What you have not calculated:
Jabbing 1e9 people, 10k of them developing serious issues (expected prior) and there being a multi-hop connection between 5 of them. Two of them actually being brothers (familial clustering), and some with issues likely more prevalent so not even from the 10k group (1/1e5 cutoff).
Your math is wrong, see the birthday paradox. But still, unlikely.
It's a back of the envelope calculation. I've a strong intuition that the precise answer isn't too far off.
The math is monumentally off. It fixates on 5 specific people having issiues, instead of: There exist some 5 loosely connected people that some HN-er heard about, and probably hasn't even met all of them in person, especially the ones that died.
The implied qualification of - there exists a HN-er so divide by 1e9 to get odds - is nowhere close to accounting for the additional degrees of freedom from the social graph.
The implied qualification of - there exists a HN-er so divide by 1e9 to get odds - is nowhere close to accounting for the additional degrees of freedom from the social graph.
I know someone who died 2 days after getting lunch.
3 people in my family are after 3rd dose, me included. No issues. Another 7 people are after 2 doses, aged 30-90, again no issues. We all got Pfizer vaccine. Do you have any proof on what you are saying? Because what you just wrote would make a news headlines. Sorry, but without proof it's really hard to believe what you are writing, that sounds more like one of the anti vaccine movement propaganda.
> Isn’t it just easier [...] to require people to [do what I think is right] rather than debate [...]?
- said every soviet officers ever.
You might not believe in democracy, but this is still a better system than autocracy. Even if you were right (hint: you're not), this is setting a very dangerous precedent than can and will be abused down the line.
You might not believe in democracy, but this is still a better system than autocracy. Even if you were right (hint: you're not), this is setting a very dangerous precedent than can and will be abused down the line.
What a BS argument. It is indeed easier to verify vaccination than natural immunity. That is a cold hard fact, and people who contradict it don't understand how complicated the testing is or how many health providers and labs there are.
Legal requirements are shaped by such "conveniences" all the time. Of course you wouldn't need a driver's license if you could argue with a police officer at a traffic stop that you are qualified to drive, had no DOIs etc. It's a lot easier though to require a driving test and a current license.
Same thing with the vaccination.
Legal requirements are shaped by such "conveniences" all the time. Of course you wouldn't need a driver's license if you could argue with a police officer at a traffic stop that you are qualified to drive, had no DOIs etc. It's a lot easier though to require a driving test and a current license.
Same thing with the vaccination.
Would you please educate me on
> how complicated the testing is or how many health providers and labs there are.
AFAIK, you can actually test blood reactivity to virus protein, proving a positive.
I'm not sure how you would prove that a person actually got vaccinated and it wasn't the case of doctor pouring vaccine down the drain, someone else taking the vaccine instead etc.
> how complicated the testing is or how many health providers and labs there are.
AFAIK, you can actually test blood reactivity to virus protein, proving a positive.
I'm not sure how you would prove that a person actually got vaccinated and it wasn't the case of doctor pouring vaccine down the drain, someone else taking the vaccine instead etc.
I don't have time to explain to you the intricacies of antibody testing. However, it is much more difficult than to standardize on what antigens and what titres to pick and how to correlate that for a "positive" result. Testing for neutralizing antibodies is even harder, because it involves isolating the antibodies and testing them against live virus particles and a cell culture.
And yes, standardizing such testing, as complicated and expensive as it is, across all the relevant labs across the country would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
I'm not going to engage with your bullshit about doctors faking vaccinations.
And yes, standardizing such testing, as complicated and expensive as it is, across all the relevant labs across the country would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
I'm not going to engage with your bullshit about doctors faking vaccinations.
Iceland accepts either vaccine or previous infection certificates[1][2]. They seemed to handle covid well, being fairly strict.
Fake vaccinations[3], including fake certificates are popular, especially when they are forced. If you want a fake vaccination, I know a guy who knows a guy. Point is - it's not bullshit.
Yes, checking certificates is easier than testing for antibodies. While harder, I still think antibody tests would have less false positives and I most certainly don't think the relative easiness to administer vaccines is a good reason to require everyone to take them, even when they are more immune then those who only got the vaccine.
A friend had an antibody test as he already had covid and didn't want to go for a vaccine. It was no big deal.
[1] https://www.covid.is/sub-categories/travel-to-and-within-ice...
[2] https://www.landlaeknir.is/um-embaettid/greinar/grein/item43...
[3] https://text.npr.org/1026863219
Fake vaccinations[3], including fake certificates are popular, especially when they are forced. If you want a fake vaccination, I know a guy who knows a guy. Point is - it's not bullshit.
Yes, checking certificates is easier than testing for antibodies. While harder, I still think antibody tests would have less false positives and I most certainly don't think the relative easiness to administer vaccines is a good reason to require everyone to take them, even when they are more immune then those who only got the vaccine.
A friend had an antibody test as he already had covid and didn't want to go for a vaccine. It was no big deal.
[1] https://www.covid.is/sub-categories/travel-to-and-within-ice...
[2] https://www.landlaeknir.is/um-embaettid/greinar/grein/item43...
[3] https://text.npr.org/1026863219
Did you notice that Iceland is a slightly smaller country, with probably quite a bit fewer medical labs? Also an island, with islands generally having an easier time with all the pandemic restrictions stuff?
I don't even know how Iceland's health system is organized. But it would be a good bet that it is light years ahead of the mess of the 52 states plus territories and whatever! Much different story.
I don't even know how Iceland's health system is organized. But it would be a good bet that it is light years ahead of the mess of the 52 states plus territories and whatever! Much different story.
Couldn't agree more. It's so frustrating to have topics worthy of debate come up with a shit article where the author tries to cloak his transparent bias in "false righteous rationality".
Just look at the first paragraph:
> he stated that these measures were necessary to “protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers.” But isn’t the vaccine itself supposed to be what protects the vaccinated? Not well enough, apparently. So whose interests are served by mandating a leaky vaccine that prevents neither infection nor transmission of a disease that is chiefly dangerous to people over 75 or with serious preexisting medical conditions?
Any competent scientist could easily explain that even with an extremely effective vaccine (which Pfizer and Moderna are, at least in relation to virtually any other vaccine, not the "leaky vaccine" he wants to imply), risk will still be high if there is widespread community transmission. This is not a difficult concept to understand, it's simply basic math with any vaccine that has less than 100% effectiveness (i.e. all of them).
Besides, I've always interpreted more of "protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated" is that our ICUs we're very recently filled to capacity overwhelmingly due to unvaccinated people getting sick, and that has serious negative consequences on everyone.
Just look at the first paragraph:
> he stated that these measures were necessary to “protect vaccinated workers from unvaccinated co-workers.” But isn’t the vaccine itself supposed to be what protects the vaccinated? Not well enough, apparently. So whose interests are served by mandating a leaky vaccine that prevents neither infection nor transmission of a disease that is chiefly dangerous to people over 75 or with serious preexisting medical conditions?
Any competent scientist could easily explain that even with an extremely effective vaccine (which Pfizer and Moderna are, at least in relation to virtually any other vaccine, not the "leaky vaccine" he wants to imply), risk will still be high if there is widespread community transmission. This is not a difficult concept to understand, it's simply basic math with any vaccine that has less than 100% effectiveness (i.e. all of them).
Besides, I've always interpreted more of "protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated" is that our ICUs we're very recently filled to capacity overwhelmingly due to unvaccinated people getting sick, and that has serious negative consequences on everyone.
Only one problem with your 1-2% risk calculation. In the US at least 100M people have survived infection. Subsidized vaccination of these people amounts to nothing more than payola on a massive scale.
We actually don't know how many of these people have a current immunity, for several reasons, starting with when the infection happened and not ending with knowing who had what strain of the virus. It's also not clear every one of the 100M people would be able to reliable prove he had Covid-19. Or that it is possible to prevent people from somehow faking that proof.
We do know that a vaccination after recovery results in even better immunity than natural immunity alone.
So it's much cheaper to just vaccinate them and KNOW they are immune, rather than indulge in a massive bureaucratic nightmare about test results...
We do know that a vaccination after recovery results in even better immunity than natural immunity alone.
So it's much cheaper to just vaccinate them and KNOW they are immune, rather than indulge in a massive bureaucratic nightmare about test results...
Straw man argument detected: if one has to show a pass to get in somewhere, the bureaucratic load for assigning an “approved” status is equivalent whether is a test result or a proof of being jabbed.
Nope, there are three vaccines, and (in the US) only one kind of document that proves vaccination with them. On the other hand, you'd either have to prove positive infection and recovery (with multiple test results) to someone (whom?) or to standardize some kind of antibody testing which also has to take place soon after the infection, because those antibodies don't last very long. The immunity might last longer, but the kind of antibodies that are modestly easy to detect, don't. But because of the nature of those kinds of tests, every single lab would need to be certified individually and there would need to be another step to actually issue some kind of certificate.
So yes, to me it sounds massively more complicated and expensive than just getting two harmless vaccinations.
So yes, to me it sounds massively more complicated and expensive than just getting two harmless vaccinations.
The CDC estimated the overall US infection fatality rate at 0.6%, not 1-2%. But I would still encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
> you need to have had the virus to become naturally immune
According to oft cited data early on, many people were naturally resistant (perhaps not immune) from similarly packaged (viral envelope) coronaviruses with less dangerous infections, including a 2019-2020 season variant of the common cold.
I don't see those articles anymore. It was also supported by data (and cited by clinicians including at the Mayo Clinic) that folks with current MMR vaccinations and the tuberculosis vaccination given in India tended to test as resistant.
Anyway, just data points from real medical data at a research institute of international reknown not cited...
According to oft cited data early on, many people were naturally resistant (perhaps not immune) from similarly packaged (viral envelope) coronaviruses with less dangerous infections, including a 2019-2020 season variant of the common cold.
I don't see those articles anymore. It was also supported by data (and cited by clinicians including at the Mayo Clinic) that folks with current MMR vaccinations and the tuberculosis vaccination given in India tended to test as resistant.
Anyway, just data points from real medical data at a research institute of international reknown not cited...
Natural immunity is better, but politically the CDC cannot accept it.
"Covid Confusion at the CDC"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-coronavirus-breakthrou...
"...The CDC’s failure to report meaningful data has left policy makers flying blind. In the absence of good data to answer the basic questions Americans have been asking, political opinions have filled the vacuum. Strong data might have prevented much of the polarization over Covid.
Sound data from the CDC has been especially lacking on natural immunity from prior Covid infection. On Aug. 25, Israel published the most powerful and scientifically rigorous study on the subject to date. In a sample of more than 700,000 people, natural immunity was 27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic infections..."
"...Despite this evidence, U.S. public health officials continue to dismiss natural immunity, insisting that those who have recovered from Covid must still get the vaccine. Policy makers and public health leaders, and the media voices that parrot them, are inexplicably sticking to their original hypothesis that natural immunity is fleeting, even as at least 15 studies show it lasts..."
"...The CDC did put out a study on natural immunity last month, forcefully concluding that vaccinated immunity was 2.3 times better than natural immunity. The CDC used these results to justify telling those with natural immunity to get vaccinated.
But the rate of infection in each group was less than 0.01%, meaning infections were exceedingly rare in the short two-month time period the agency chose to study. This is odd, given there are more than a year of data available. Moreover, despite having data on all 50 states, the CDC only reported data from Kentucky. Was Kentucky the only state that produced the desired result? Why else exclude the same data from the other 49 states?
Some public health officials are afraid to acknowledge natural immunity because they fear some will choose infection over vaccination. But leaders can encourage all Americans who aren’t immune to get vaccinated and be transparent with the data at the same time..."
"Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections"
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
-------------------------
Conclusions:
"This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant."
-------------------------
"Covid Confusion at the CDC"
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-coronavirus-breakthrou...
"...The CDC’s failure to report meaningful data has left policy makers flying blind. In the absence of good data to answer the basic questions Americans have been asking, political opinions have filled the vacuum. Strong data might have prevented much of the polarization over Covid.
Sound data from the CDC has been especially lacking on natural immunity from prior Covid infection. On Aug. 25, Israel published the most powerful and scientifically rigorous study on the subject to date. In a sample of more than 700,000 people, natural immunity was 27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic infections..."
"...Despite this evidence, U.S. public health officials continue to dismiss natural immunity, insisting that those who have recovered from Covid must still get the vaccine. Policy makers and public health leaders, and the media voices that parrot them, are inexplicably sticking to their original hypothesis that natural immunity is fleeting, even as at least 15 studies show it lasts..."
"...The CDC did put out a study on natural immunity last month, forcefully concluding that vaccinated immunity was 2.3 times better than natural immunity. The CDC used these results to justify telling those with natural immunity to get vaccinated.
But the rate of infection in each group was less than 0.01%, meaning infections were exceedingly rare in the short two-month time period the agency chose to study. This is odd, given there are more than a year of data available. Moreover, despite having data on all 50 states, the CDC only reported data from Kentucky. Was Kentucky the only state that produced the desired result? Why else exclude the same data from the other 49 states?
Some public health officials are afraid to acknowledge natural immunity because they fear some will choose infection over vaccination. But leaders can encourage all Americans who aren’t immune to get vaccinated and be transparent with the data at the same time..."
"Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections"
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
-------------------------
Conclusions:
"This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant."
-------------------------
> If we fail to resist this establishment now, the harms caused by a medicalized “show your papers” regime will far exceed the threat posed by the virus itself.
Author lost me there, I'm afraid.
Author lost me there, I'm afraid.
That “1-2%” is FAR too high of an estimate.
Although regional numbers vary of course, in my state the death rate by county has averaged between 0.0004 and 0.0032 percent.
Or, in decimal notation, 0.000004-0.000032
These numbers were calculated based on the Covid data repository maintained by the New York Times (https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data) and US Census data (http://www.census.gov/).
Although regional numbers vary of course, in my state the death rate by county has averaged between 0.0004 and 0.0032 percent.
Or, in decimal notation, 0.000004-0.000032
These numbers were calculated based on the Covid data repository maintained by the New York Times (https://github.com/nytimes/covid-19-data) and US Census data (http://www.census.gov/).
Something is horribly wrong with your math.
0.000004 * 320,000,000 = 1,280 deaths for the entire USA. Your higher estimate yields 10,240 deaths. In reality we’ve had at least 700,000 deaths.
For those who are infected, the naive Case Fatality Rate is about 1-2%. See for example, https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid There are reasons to suspect the real rate is lower in several countries - many places under test cases, so the denominator in deaths/cases is too small.
Additionally, this rate isn’t static - we were seeing upwards of 10% death rates before effective treatments became known and available.
0.000004 * 320,000,000 = 1,280 deaths for the entire USA. Your higher estimate yields 10,240 deaths. In reality we’ve had at least 700,000 deaths.
For those who are infected, the naive Case Fatality Rate is about 1-2%. See for example, https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid There are reasons to suspect the real rate is lower in several countries - many places under test cases, so the denominator in deaths/cases is too small.
Additionally, this rate isn’t static - we were seeing upwards of 10% death rates before effective treatments became known and available.
This whole area might fall into the Sam Clemens quote:
"There are lies, damned lies and statistics"
Since 30 to 40 percent of humans experience no illness with this thing the denominator can be quite different depending on what you use for it. Notwithstanding that...
John's Hopkins Website https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/bda759474...
USA
Total Cases Total Deaths
44,318,179 712,975 1.6%
This is with oxygen support and whatever treatments have been used.
In Mexico where health care seems harder to access
Total Cases Total Deaths
3,720,545 281,958 ~7.6%
So IF you get sick and you don't have modern medicine it's a serious disease.
IF you are one of the lucky 30..40% it's a piece of cake. Flip a coin.
Since 30 to 40 percent of humans experience no illness with this thing the denominator can be quite different depending on what you use for it. Notwithstanding that...
John's Hopkins Website https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/bda759474...
USA
Total Cases Total Deaths
44,318,179 712,975 1.6%
This is with oxygen support and whatever treatments have been used.
In Mexico where health care seems harder to access
Total Cases Total Deaths
3,720,545 281,958 ~7.6%
So IF you get sick and you don't have modern medicine it's a serious disease.
IF you are one of the lucky 30..40% it's a piece of cake. Flip a coin.
CFR (Case Fatality Rate) is very different than IFR (Infection fatality Rate). Many many more people have been infected but only the more severe cases tend to end up and be counted in the hospitals.
Yes, especially in a disease with as much as 40% asymptomatic infections.
So if we correct by that 40% factor the USA goes to 1% death rate or roughly 10X influenza.
Mexico becomes 4.5%. Not insignificant.
So if we correct by that 40% factor the USA goes to 1% death rate or roughly 10X influenza.
Mexico becomes 4.5%. Not insignificant.
Death rate of people who got covid, not of everyone. Show your working ..
With this virus, especially the Delta variant, you can pretty much assume at least 80% of the population to get infected if there hadn't been all these measures.
Also not necessarily in the first or second wave...
Also not necessarily in the first or second wave...
I try to summarize leaving out explicit statements about Covid:
- a significant portion of the US-Population (my remark: similar to other western countries) is not willing to take the shot
- a huge proportion of which are underprivileged, from "working classes"
- the pharmaceutical companies have a gigantic financial leverage, in total $1.3 trillion. (My remark: an example from Germany: Biontech Investors: Thomas & Andreas Strüngmann (Hexal) €48 billion; Biontech Founders: Özlem Türeci & Uğur Şahin: €13.5 billion.)
- basic violations of informed and voluntary consent
- criminal past ("Pfizer paid out the biggest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history as part of a $2.3 billion fine for illegal marketing, along with numerous other penalties.")
- revolving door (Scott Gottlieb, the former head of the FDA who accelerated the agency’s drug approval process, now sits on Pfizer’s board.)
- lobbying spending etc.
So, if one is willing to step outside the danger of being killed or seriously harmed by the virus, it is actually scary from a mere power standpoint, a trojan horse for totalitarian elements which once installed are very difficult to get rid of.
Basically there are broadly two camps: One side is afraid of the virus the other side is afraid of losing their freedoms. And they are each accusing one another to be "over-sensitive" to the point that there is barley any exchange anymore but an adherence to be on the "right side" of history, science whatever. This split can be observed way before, the recent one with Trump. And from my perspective the long underlying mechanism (beginning with the 70's) is indeed the ever greater gap between the rich and the poor.
So my point: take the fears of the persons around you seriously, however irrational they seem to you. Social media is a very bad representation since it is designed for the single purpose to capture your attention. Try to take the conscious effort from time to time to get out of your bubble in which you were socialized. And then, try not to lecture immediately but instead listen and perceive the real persons before you, their motiviations, their stories etc.
- a significant portion of the US-Population (my remark: similar to other western countries) is not willing to take the shot
- a huge proportion of which are underprivileged, from "working classes"
- the pharmaceutical companies have a gigantic financial leverage, in total $1.3 trillion. (My remark: an example from Germany: Biontech Investors: Thomas & Andreas Strüngmann (Hexal) €48 billion; Biontech Founders: Özlem Türeci & Uğur Şahin: €13.5 billion.)
- basic violations of informed and voluntary consent
- criminal past ("Pfizer paid out the biggest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history as part of a $2.3 billion fine for illegal marketing, along with numerous other penalties.")
- revolving door (Scott Gottlieb, the former head of the FDA who accelerated the agency’s drug approval process, now sits on Pfizer’s board.)
- lobbying spending etc.
So, if one is willing to step outside the danger of being killed or seriously harmed by the virus, it is actually scary from a mere power standpoint, a trojan horse for totalitarian elements which once installed are very difficult to get rid of.
Basically there are broadly two camps: One side is afraid of the virus the other side is afraid of losing their freedoms. And they are each accusing one another to be "over-sensitive" to the point that there is barley any exchange anymore but an adherence to be on the "right side" of history, science whatever. This split can be observed way before, the recent one with Trump. And from my perspective the long underlying mechanism (beginning with the 70's) is indeed the ever greater gap between the rich and the poor.
So my point: take the fears of the persons around you seriously, however irrational they seem to you. Social media is a very bad representation since it is designed for the single purpose to capture your attention. Try to take the conscious effort from time to time to get out of your bubble in which you were socialized. And then, try not to lecture immediately but instead listen and perceive the real persons before you, their motiviations, their stories etc.
Thank you for this summary, your last comment seems most important. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd summarize that as a willingness to see people as people.
> revolving door (Scott Gottlieb, the former head of the FDA who accelerated the agency’s drug approval process, now sits on Pfizer’s board.)
This seems very, very concerning and presents a conflict of interest. Can someone help me understand how that is not the case?
This seems very, very concerning and presents a conflict of interest. Can someone help me understand how that is not the case?
> a significant portion of the US-Population (my remark: similar to other western countries) is not willing to take the shot
It is far more pronounced in the US than it is in other western countries. There was an interesting article on that yesterday in USA Today, but it is so paywalled I can't even get a reasonable link there, but here it is on Yahoo [1].
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/cambodia-canada-dozens-other-nations-...
It is far more pronounced in the US than it is in other western countries. There was an interesting article on that yesterday in USA Today, but it is so paywalled I can't even get a reasonable link there, but here it is on Yahoo [1].
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/cambodia-canada-dozens-other-nations-...
Last night I had a few interesting conversations with a range of people at a birthday party. The group I was speaking with were mostly in the sciences and technology with a couple of high school teachers and a college professor in the mix.
The perspectives were interesting. I won't get into all the details here. I'll just say that the well-reasoned opinions spanned a range.
The teachers had legitimate concerns about their safety while teaching in-person classes. One of them told me that the students pull down their masks all the time and that it is impossible to enforce it (she even said it was somewhat cruel for some). Yet she was genuinely concerned about her safety and that of her family.
A tech executive, older than the rest of the group, said he waited as long as possible before getting vaccinated because he wanted to see more data. Or, to be more accurate, he said something like: I wanted to give it enough time to see if fully vaccinated people were going to end-up in the hospital because of the vaccine. He was concerned about potential long term issues (a decade or more). In the end he reasoned he is old enough that he was far more likely to die from something else anyway, so, in his case, the potential for long term effects could be discounted.
Everyone in this gathering was vaccinated, yet, vaccine hesitancy came up in a number of conversations. There were also threads about the idea of the government forcing people to do something with their bodies under threat of losing their jobs, not being able to travel, not being able to go to any public places, etc. In many ways it is an argument that rhymes with the abortion debate: In that case we (well, some of us) believe it is the woman's right to choose. In other words, the government should not have anything to do with a woman's body. And yet, with vaccines, we accept being forced to inject a substance under threat of harm? It's an interesting and very complex comparison.
If I had to summarize the various conversations I would say everybody there wants everyone to be vaccinated. The difference is in how different people think we ought to get there. Some were OK with forcing the issue, others though it was a potentially dangerous precedent.
As is always the case, when you have in-person conversations with people you can actually explore issues in a far more civilized and informative way, everyone is respectful and there is no down-voting or flagging. Just people talking and sharing ideas. Refreshing when compared to the shit show online discussions often turn into.
Anti-vaxxers need help. The path is education, not a hammer over the head. They are not elementary school dropouts without teeth. They come in all shapes, sizes, races and levels of education.
The perspectives were interesting. I won't get into all the details here. I'll just say that the well-reasoned opinions spanned a range.
The teachers had legitimate concerns about their safety while teaching in-person classes. One of them told me that the students pull down their masks all the time and that it is impossible to enforce it (she even said it was somewhat cruel for some). Yet she was genuinely concerned about her safety and that of her family.
A tech executive, older than the rest of the group, said he waited as long as possible before getting vaccinated because he wanted to see more data. Or, to be more accurate, he said something like: I wanted to give it enough time to see if fully vaccinated people were going to end-up in the hospital because of the vaccine. He was concerned about potential long term issues (a decade or more). In the end he reasoned he is old enough that he was far more likely to die from something else anyway, so, in his case, the potential for long term effects could be discounted.
Everyone in this gathering was vaccinated, yet, vaccine hesitancy came up in a number of conversations. There were also threads about the idea of the government forcing people to do something with their bodies under threat of losing their jobs, not being able to travel, not being able to go to any public places, etc. In many ways it is an argument that rhymes with the abortion debate: In that case we (well, some of us) believe it is the woman's right to choose. In other words, the government should not have anything to do with a woman's body. And yet, with vaccines, we accept being forced to inject a substance under threat of harm? It's an interesting and very complex comparison.
If I had to summarize the various conversations I would say everybody there wants everyone to be vaccinated. The difference is in how different people think we ought to get there. Some were OK with forcing the issue, others though it was a potentially dangerous precedent.
As is always the case, when you have in-person conversations with people you can actually explore issues in a far more civilized and informative way, everyone is respectful and there is no down-voting or flagging. Just people talking and sharing ideas. Refreshing when compared to the shit show online discussions often turn into.
Anti-vaxxers need help. The path is education, not a hammer over the head. They are not elementary school dropouts without teeth. They come in all shapes, sizes, races and levels of education.
Perhaps the first thing to do is stop listening to the marketing (yes, the message tested marketing pitch being sold to you) that people who have every prior vaccination, yet want to understand the risk/reward profile of this particular one, are somehow “anti-vaxxers”.
For me, the past two years will go down in history as a spectacular example of marketing messaging.
For me, the past two years will go down in history as a spectacular example of marketing messaging.
And sometimes education comes from the rest of society saying “you are welcome to your beliefs, but not welcome to pollute my air at our workplace until you aren’t a danger to me.”
We set the precedent for forced vaccination nearly a century ago. There is no slippery slope here, or at least if there is we already slid down the hill and are resting comfortably on flat ground.
We set the precedent for forced vaccination nearly a century ago. There is no slippery slope here, or at least if there is we already slid down the hill and are resting comfortably on flat ground.
From the article, among the points is that this is a slippery slope that led to uninformed sterilization of black and native people:
> It is rarely acknowledged that this decision also made possible the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1927 case of Buck v. Bell, in which the court determined: “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” This ruling legitimized eugenics laws and led to 70,000 forced sterilizations in the United States
Many people still don't trust forced medical proceedings.
> It is rarely acknowledged that this decision also made possible the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1927 case of Buck v. Bell, in which the court determined: “The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” This ruling legitimized eugenics laws and led to 70,000 forced sterilizations in the United States
Many people still don't trust forced medical proceedings.
That’s a fair point, and I hadn’t heard of that Supreme Court ruling.
Without being too flippant, I believe the pro-Eugenics society the court came from would have found a way to twist any precedent or lack thereof to justify eugenics. Some of the same members of that court went on to sanction imprisonment and property theft from thousands of people without even the pretense of crime other than their race.
I also want to point out the current rules (and what most ppl are advocating for) aren’t forced medical proceedings. Truly involuntarily medical proceedings have almost exclusively been abused.
Everyone is free to not receive a vaccine, they just have some negative consequences for doing so.
It turns out the inconvenience of not being able to go to a restaurant was hugely compelling in France, for instance.
I’m sensitive to the fact that threats to livelihood don’t feel very voluntary. In the US, the threat to livelihood isn’t from the government. There is no national vaccine mandate - just an annoying testing mandate the vaccinated get to skip out on.
Without being too flippant, I believe the pro-Eugenics society the court came from would have found a way to twist any precedent or lack thereof to justify eugenics. Some of the same members of that court went on to sanction imprisonment and property theft from thousands of people without even the pretense of crime other than their race.
I also want to point out the current rules (and what most ppl are advocating for) aren’t forced medical proceedings. Truly involuntarily medical proceedings have almost exclusively been abused.
Everyone is free to not receive a vaccine, they just have some negative consequences for doing so.
It turns out the inconvenience of not being able to go to a restaurant was hugely compelling in France, for instance.
I’m sensitive to the fact that threats to livelihood don’t feel very voluntary. In the US, the threat to livelihood isn’t from the government. There is no national vaccine mandate - just an annoying testing mandate the vaccinated get to skip out on.
I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, but your comment makes no sense and presents a false choice. Vaccinated people can also pollute the air at your workspace and present a danger to you. There is only a limited and temporary reduction in risk of transmission.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y
Good article. Among other things, it highlights how much we still don't know about this mess.
I like to always highlight not to reduce reality to a single variable, when the correct model contains so many we can't even enumerate them.
I also try very hard not to be told what to think. This requires work. Sadly our society, perhaps fueled by social media, sees individuals who "know" the truth about all kinds of subjects. In quotes because, more often than not, what they believe is in a range between false, a fantasy or, at best, inaccurate or incomplete.
We all know that the concept of vaccines (isolated from any particular event or case, just the idea) is good. From there to always religiously equate "vaccine" to "good" is a mistake. Even worse, label those who do not want to get vaccinated as stupid, well, to be kind, potentially uninformed.
We need more conversation and less hatred.
Issues rarely boil down to a single variable. Through conversation we often learn about the hundred or more we might have missed because we "know" the truth as it was told to us.
I like to always highlight not to reduce reality to a single variable, when the correct model contains so many we can't even enumerate them.
I also try very hard not to be told what to think. This requires work. Sadly our society, perhaps fueled by social media, sees individuals who "know" the truth about all kinds of subjects. In quotes because, more often than not, what they believe is in a range between false, a fantasy or, at best, inaccurate or incomplete.
We all know that the concept of vaccines (isolated from any particular event or case, just the idea) is good. From there to always religiously equate "vaccine" to "good" is a mistake. Even worse, label those who do not want to get vaccinated as stupid, well, to be kind, potentially uninformed.
We need more conversation and less hatred.
Issues rarely boil down to a single variable. Through conversation we often learn about the hundred or more we might have missed because we "know" the truth as it was told to us.
The Politicisation of the Plague in the USA is the real story here, and I think many in the US are unaware that it’s not like that in other places.
For example in the UK vaccination rates amongst Conservative and Labour voters are the same.
So why is there such disparity in the US between Biden voters and Trump voters when it comes to Covid-denialism, pseudo-cures, and antivaxxing?
For example in the UK vaccination rates amongst Conservative and Labour voters are the same.
So why is there such disparity in the US between Biden voters and Trump voters when it comes to Covid-denialism, pseudo-cures, and antivaxxing?
I think a contributing factor is the general demographics of the parties. Conservative areas tend to rural and less densely populated compared to liberal areas that tend to be higher density populations. Rural communities are more "take care of yourself" and I thinks a lot of our inability to meet eye to eye comes from different base assumptions.
I feel like it's a case where you the stereotypes exist to backwards explain any outcome that you want.
Like NYC and Boston famously have a "fuck you, mind you own business" stereotype contrasted with a rural stereotype expectation of cooperating for the community.
I think the higher order bit is Repliblicans pushing an anti-institutional agenda more recently (including Trump saying bad things about historically conservative institutions like the FBI) which naturally lines up with an antivax agenda.
Like NYC and Boston famously have a "fuck you, mind you own business" stereotype contrasted with a rural stereotype expectation of cooperating for the community.
I think the higher order bit is Repliblicans pushing an anti-institutional agenda more recently (including Trump saying bad things about historically conservative institutions like the FBI) which naturally lines up with an antivax agenda.
[deleted]
> So why is there such disparity in the US between Biden voters and Trump voters when it comes to Covid-denialism, pseudo-cures, and antivaxxing?
And creationism vs. evolution, and global warming denial, and the "Trump won" big lie, etc... See a pattern here?
I call it anti-science ignorance.
And creationism vs. evolution, and global warming denial, and the "Trump won" big lie, etc... See a pattern here?
I call it anti-science ignorance.
Despite the downvotes, you're not wrong.
And, it's not anti-science for the sake of anti-science. It's part of an overall anti-establishment theme. The point of it is to sell people on the idea that they are under attack and only one party (man) is their savior. To do that, they have to cleave people away from reality. So, it's all mistrust built primarily on misinformation and conspiracy theories, whether it's Q or COVID.
And, voilà: with these grievances and fears so viciously stoked, you now have an army of programmed drones under your command who believe they're fighting an existential war for their freedom vs simply being asked to be a responsible member of society.
That's how you end up with people like this woman, who are closer to the center of the party than many people want to admit:
https://mobile.twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1447211987717...
I will now have some of your downvotes.
And, it's not anti-science for the sake of anti-science. It's part of an overall anti-establishment theme. The point of it is to sell people on the idea that they are under attack and only one party (man) is their savior. To do that, they have to cleave people away from reality. So, it's all mistrust built primarily on misinformation and conspiracy theories, whether it's Q or COVID.
And, voilà: with these grievances and fears so viciously stoked, you now have an army of programmed drones under your command who believe they're fighting an existential war for their freedom vs simply being asked to be a responsible member of society.
That's how you end up with people like this woman, who are closer to the center of the party than many people want to admit:
https://mobile.twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/1447211987717...
I will now have some of your downvotes.
An interesting wrinkle to this is all the media personalities and Democrat politicians (including our current VP) that we’re staunchly opposed to the vaccine while Trump was still president.
Now that Biden is president, it is apparently a different vaccine (for both sides of the aisle)
Now that Biden is president, it is apparently a different vaccine (for both sides of the aisle)
What the current VP said during the previous administration was that she was not confident that the previous administration would base their recommendations on what scientists said rather than what is politically expedient, and that she would go with what the scientists said when it came to evaluating COVID measures.
See https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/23/tiktok-pos...
See https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/23/tiktok-pos...
What she actually said: “If Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely,” Harris said. “But if Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it.”
And again, she is just one example among very very many.
And again, she is just one example among very very many.
Generally, when someone says "If X ... but if Y" they are talking about the cases X && !Y and !X && Y. For the X && Y case you need to look at other statements. In Harris' case her other statements are that she did not consider Trump a creditable source of COVID treatment information.
Harris is saying that if Dr. Fauci says to take it she would regardless of what Trump says, and that if Trump says to take it but Dr. Fauci does not she would not take it.
Harris is saying that if Dr. Fauci says to take it she would regardless of what Trump says, and that if Trump says to take it but Dr. Fauci does not she would not take it.
the strange anti-vax angle of the article aside that others have pointed to, having spent my time almost equally between western Europe and East-Asia (mostly for family related reasons) I just can't wrap my head around how people think the poor suffer from an excess of 'bio-authoritarianism'.
The poor don't care about authoritarianism. They care about having jobs, people coming into their stores, and their children going to daycare.
The poor suffer when the state does not function and does not do its job. Countries like China, both Taiwan and the mainland, Singapore, Vietnam even New Zealand and a few others avoided much harm to the poor by means of crushing the disease. They avoided both economic and disease burden by taking strong measures that anyone in Western Europe would have flinched about. (and then I had to live through anyway during three different lockdowns in Europe after live in China returned to normal in summer 2020.)
Vaccine passports suck but not because they're too authoritarian but because they're not authoritarian enough. They're half measures done by governments that were too indecisive to go all the way, at the expense of the most vulnerable in society.
Reading an anti-vax article afraid of authoritarianism after a crisis caused by weak and dysfunctional governance is like some sort of comedy. As if someone wrote an article in 2010 arguing the financial crisis harmed the poor because we regulated the financial sector too heavily or something
The poor don't care about authoritarianism. They care about having jobs, people coming into their stores, and their children going to daycare.
The poor suffer when the state does not function and does not do its job. Countries like China, both Taiwan and the mainland, Singapore, Vietnam even New Zealand and a few others avoided much harm to the poor by means of crushing the disease. They avoided both economic and disease burden by taking strong measures that anyone in Western Europe would have flinched about. (and then I had to live through anyway during three different lockdowns in Europe after live in China returned to normal in summer 2020.)
Vaccine passports suck but not because they're too authoritarian but because they're not authoritarian enough. They're half measures done by governments that were too indecisive to go all the way, at the expense of the most vulnerable in society.
Reading an anti-vax article afraid of authoritarianism after a crisis caused by weak and dysfunctional governance is like some sort of comedy. As if someone wrote an article in 2010 arguing the financial crisis harmed the poor because we regulated the financial sector too heavily or something
Regulations like this can often be sidestepped; for the right amount of money. I'm sure there are private airlines that don't care about your vaccine status. Abortion is much the same. People with money can fly to a state that allows abortions; the poor cannot. So on and so forth.
> Countries like China, both Taiwan and the mainland, Singapore, Vietnam even New Zealand and a few others avoided much harm to the poor by means of crushing the disease.
The rural poor were likely fine. I do think there's an uneven impact of self-isolation for the urban poor, though. Wealthy people have more space, meaning more options for things you can do inside and less clashes over personal space. They're also more likely to live in an area where they can get to a green space without violating a curfew.
How much would someone have to pay you to self-isolate for a year in an apartment in the bottom 10% of rents in your city?
> Countries like China, both Taiwan and the mainland, Singapore, Vietnam even New Zealand and a few others avoided much harm to the poor by means of crushing the disease.
The rural poor were likely fine. I do think there's an uneven impact of self-isolation for the urban poor, though. Wealthy people have more space, meaning more options for things you can do inside and less clashes over personal space. They're also more likely to live in an area where they can get to a green space without violating a curfew.
How much would someone have to pay you to self-isolate for a year in an apartment in the bottom 10% of rents in your city?
> So whose interests are served by mandating a leaky vaccine that prevents neither infection nor transmission of a disease that is chiefly dangerous to people over 75 or with serious preexisting medical conditions?
Should I keep reading? I think not
Should I keep reading? I think not
Should I explore perspectives outside of accepted party narratives? I think not
Rather like minmaxing, once you encounter something severely discredited there's no point going on and you can prune that whole dialogue tree.
If people want to convince me, they need to lead with their strongest evidence.
If people want to convince me, they need to lead with their strongest evidence.
Exactly. My personal catalog of "fast fail" heuristics. Alas, it takes a while to compile all the tropes, dog whistles, talking points.
> If people want to convince me, they need to lead with their strongest evidence.
Yes and:
I considered myself a Popperian. I used to think discourse and reason could solve all of our problems. Ha.
How do I talk to my creationist (for instance) family members? What can I say that hasn't been said before?
I can't. And even if I could, I don't have the resources or wherewithal to counterbalance the tsunami of noise.
So I adapted.
One consequence is I'm now a predictionist. Whatever that's called. (Utilitarian?) For public discourse, rhetoric, policy I no longer care about base truth, objective reality.
Just make some predictions and stand by them. How does a belief in creationism, young earth, supply side economics, herd immunity, or whatever (for instances) help me navigate the world?
As I aged, I had less drive to refute every utterance about astrology (for instance). Now I no longer feel compelled or obligated to refute any other given cult.
Okay, I think that's my rant. Oh my god, family can push our buttons.
> If people want to convince me, they need to lead with their strongest evidence.
Yes and:
I considered myself a Popperian. I used to think discourse and reason could solve all of our problems. Ha.
How do I talk to my creationist (for instance) family members? What can I say that hasn't been said before?
I can't. And even if I could, I don't have the resources or wherewithal to counterbalance the tsunami of noise.
So I adapted.
One consequence is I'm now a predictionist. Whatever that's called. (Utilitarian?) For public discourse, rhetoric, policy I no longer care about base truth, objective reality.
Just make some predictions and stand by them. How does a belief in creationism, young earth, supply side economics, herd immunity, or whatever (for instances) help me navigate the world?
As I aged, I had less drive to refute every utterance about astrology (for instance). Now I no longer feel compelled or obligated to refute any other given cult.
Okay, I think that's my rant. Oh my god, family can push our buttons.
“Man muss aber nicht an jeder Mülltonne schnuppern, um zu wissen, dass sie stinkt.” (Loosely translated: you don’t need to sniff on every trash can to know that it smells.”
There’s value in reading things that fall outside your preferred narrative. But that’s not an excuse to value everything, no matter how far removed from reality it is.
There’s value in reading things that fall outside your preferred narrative. But that’s not an excuse to value everything, no matter how far removed from reality it is.
[deleted]
aka Teach the controversy.
Should I eat manure to know it tastes awful? I think not, it is enough to know where it comes from.
But, if you disagree, by all means feast yourself.
But, if you disagree, by all means feast yourself.
[deleted]
Don’t forget this gem:
> almost half of the COVID-19 cases in hospitals are mild or asymptomatic
Why on earth would asymptomatic people be hospitalized?
And “mild” just means “you are not at immediate risk of death,” not “it’s going to be an easy illness.”
> almost half of the COVID-19 cases in hospitals are mild or asymptomatic
Why on earth would asymptomatic people be hospitalized?
And “mild” just means “you are not at immediate risk of death,” not “it’s going to be an easy illness.”
My wife went to the hospital with a mild case. She’s pregnant and had a monoclonal antibody infusion. We went home and she immediately developed a fever/chills/shakes when she hadn’t had any before.
So back to the hospital we went, just in case it was a reaction. They gave her some IV fluids and sent us home after 2 hours.
So there’s one. I bet a good portion of them are people freaking out once they realize they have it as a considerable portion of the population thinks the survival rate is ridiculously low.
So back to the hospital we went, just in case it was a reaction. They gave her some IV fluids and sent us home after 2 hours.
So there’s one. I bet a good portion of them are people freaking out once they realize they have it as a considerable portion of the population thinks the survival rate is ridiculously low.
Because they are in a hospital with other issues?
Testing patients is reasonable. If they are counted in the statistic, it can easily be misleading. Not sure if that's the case.
Testing patients is reasonable. If they are counted in the statistic, it can easily be misleading. Not sure if that's the case.
> In New York City for example, only 28% of the city’s Black residents aged 18 to 44 were vaccinated as of August 2021, when the city began paying residents $100 each to receive the vaccine. When that didn’t work, the city embraced a vaccine passport system that would exclude the majority of young Black New Yorkers from most indoor and civic activities, amounting to a de facto form of segregation.
In New York City it is now 40% of Black adults fully vaccinated, 49% at least 1 dose. Numbers for whites are 57% and 61%. (Latinos are 63% and 76%, Asians 89% and 91%).
For the people most at risk, those 65 and older, it is currently 57% fully vaccinated 60% at least one dose for Blacks. The numbers are 60% and 63% for whites, 64% and 67% for Latinos, and 82% and 87% for Asians.
Data: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-vaccines.p...
In New York City it is now 40% of Black adults fully vaccinated, 49% at least 1 dose. Numbers for whites are 57% and 61%. (Latinos are 63% and 76%, Asians 89% and 91%).
For the people most at risk, those 65 and older, it is currently 57% fully vaccinated 60% at least one dose for Blacks. The numbers are 60% and 63% for whites, 64% and 67% for Latinos, and 82% and 87% for Asians.
Data: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data-vaccines.p...
Thanks for posting actual data, it's helpful to understand a complex story.
Here's another well-done analysis, by the Kaiser Family Foundation:
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-...
What I find interesting is that the rate of vaccination is higher in Hispanic and Black groups than Whites, so the gap in the cumulative numbers of vaccinations is slowly closing (this is most clearly visible in Figure 3, which shows a timeline).
Here's another well-done analysis, by the Kaiser Family Foundation:
https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-...
What I find interesting is that the rate of vaccination is higher in Hispanic and Black groups than Whites, so the gap in the cumulative numbers of vaccinations is slowly closing (this is most clearly visible in Figure 3, which shows a timeline).
Couldn’t make it through the article. I’m not sure how to discuss the pandemic with people who won’t acknowledge that a vaccine that prevents death and serious disease is a good thing when over 700,000 people have died in the US alone.
There seems to exist in some circles a slippery slope fantasy, where if today we are asked or required to do X then tomorrow will assuredly bring totalitarianism.
This article is all over the place. It brings up true facts then moves on without making a point.
If the article has a message it cerianly isn't found in the writing.
If the article has a message it cerianly isn't found in the writing.
Researchers have already accounted for every point this writer brings up in this article. Yet for some reason this writer has chosen to ignore that. There is nothing more aggravating than accounting for some variable in your research only to have people bring up issues that you have already accounted for as if you did not.
"The emerging bio-authoritarianism that began as “two weeks to flatten the curve” will metastasize into something even more repellent and dangerous unless it is forthrightly opposed now, through boycotts, protests, lawsuits, labor action, and civil disobedience."
What I find truly repellent are highly educated and erudite people who spend huge effort on developing tortured arguments supporting their own agendas - such as to subvert the institutions of the United States in order to usher in an eternal Trumpian dictatorship.
The measles vaccine is not 100% effective.
The smallpox vaccine is not 100% effective.
"By one estimate" and statistics drawn from single rogue studies are not a decent or proper basis for an argument like this, this is not a court of law when precedent and legal text are fundamentals - this is science where the aggregate of evidence and analysis is used to support provisional hypothesis.
This kind of thing is disingenuous and malicious and corrosive to society. The author should be drummed out of wherever but since that's Twitter I'm not sure that that would be good thing or a bad thing.
In other news : just get the vaccine.
What I find truly repellent are highly educated and erudite people who spend huge effort on developing tortured arguments supporting their own agendas - such as to subvert the institutions of the United States in order to usher in an eternal Trumpian dictatorship.
The measles vaccine is not 100% effective.
The smallpox vaccine is not 100% effective.
"By one estimate" and statistics drawn from single rogue studies are not a decent or proper basis for an argument like this, this is not a court of law when precedent and legal text are fundamentals - this is science where the aggregate of evidence and analysis is used to support provisional hypothesis.
This kind of thing is disingenuous and malicious and corrosive to society. The author should be drummed out of wherever but since that's Twitter I'm not sure that that would be good thing or a bad thing.
In other news : just get the vaccine.
I mean, I don't know why even continue reading past the first paragraph - the author immediately summons the most overused and ultimately wrong arguments against vaccines - if you start this way then sorry, but I'm just not interested in your point of view after that. Or rather - I am, and I'm happy to have a discussion that started this way, but with an actual person face to face - I'm definitely not reading a blog post where I can't immediately go "no, wait, that's not how this works at all".
>> this is science where the aggregate of evidence and analysis is used to support provisional hypothesis.
Except those few occasions where a single experiment/paper/observation can throw out an entire field. It is rare, but science remains open to the possibility that even the most treasured law can be invalidated by a single, repeatable, experiment.
Except those few occasions where a single experiment/paper/observation can throw out an entire field. It is rare, but science remains open to the possibility that even the most treasured law can be invalidated by a single, repeatable, experiment.
The key being "repeatable".
> Firing thousands of workers for not being vaccinated (including those, to repeat, who have natural immunity through infection) is also unprecedented
Is this true in the US? It seems unreasonable.
What I've seen in the EU is that antibodies and frequent PCR testing are deemed just as acceptable as vaccination, and I think it makes sense.
Is this true in the US? It seems unreasonable.
What I've seen in the EU is that antibodies and frequent PCR testing are deemed just as acceptable as vaccination, and I think it makes sense.
Yes. It is true. There is no exception for natural immunity. Some places are theoretically willing to accept weekly PCR testing. But good luck actually keeping your job if you go that route. The whole thing is so politicized that you become one of the deplorables by choosing that route.
Given that vaccinated people can also get infected and transmit the virus, it is bizarre that we have accepted so easily the premise that only unvaccinated people need to take a weekly PCR test.
The article is probably cherry-picking something a-la [0] out of context. In short, in that specific case the largest healthcare provider in New York fired a small fraction of their total workforce because those people's choice to not vaccinate is putting other people's lives at risk. This is neither unprecedented nor unreasonable. This doesn't instil any kind of confidence in the rest of the writing.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
[deleted]
I don't understand why people are fighting so hard to avoid this vaccine.
How does antivax nonsense get 33 upvotes?
Because HN is one of the most anti-vax websites I browse regularly? This story is relatively sane compared to most.
Garbage article. :-(
Is this Facebook?
This is antivax propaganda.
The more comments like these I see around reasonable and fact-based discussions on covid and the covid vaccines, the more I am sure that my decision to hold off on getting the vaccine is the right decision. The pro-covid-vaccine movement is a cult just like the anti-all-vaccine movement.
The article contains several false statements and unsound conclusions.
Your comment does sound a lot like confirmation bias.
Your comment does sound a lot like confirmation bias.
Please provide a list of all the false statements and sources that prove them to be false statements.
rio517(2)
jzellis(3)
What stands out is the authors’ favor of natural immunity being better than vaccination.
It may well be, but it has this small caveat that you need to have had the virus to become naturally immune. E.g. you need to take that 1-2% of not surviving entirely, and if too many people take that chance at the same time, even higher.