U.S. public health agencies aren't ‘following the science,’ officials say(commonsense.news)
commonsense.news
U.S. public health agencies aren't ‘following the science,’ officials say
https://www.commonsense.news/p/us-public-health-agencies-arent-following
510 comments
> If the evidence available on the efficacy of vaccines for kids is so ridiculously wide that it goes from -99% to +370% risk of infection, then surely Norway is _also_ drastically overstating its case when it says (about kids) "previous infection offers as good of protection as the vaccine against reinfection" esp since it _also_ seems like the protective effect of prior infection is both uncertain and changing.
The protective effect of prior infection is not uncertain, nor is it changing. There have been dozens of papers now, all saying the same thing: natural infection is at least as protective (if not more so) than even 3 doses of the current vaccines. If you are hearing otherwise, you are being misinformed. Full stop.
Here's the latest paper in a long line of consistent evidence, last week in the NEJM:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965
> No discernable differences in protection against symptomatic BA.1 and BA.2 infection were seen with previous infection, vaccination, and hybrid immunity. Vaccination enhanced protection among persons who had had a previous infection. Hybrid immunity resulting from previous infection and recent booster vaccination conferred the strongest protection.
Norway is saying what it is, because we know that most people -- vaccinated or previously infected -- will eventually get re-infected. But even if you are re-infected, you will be well-protected against severe illness.
The protective effect of prior infection is not uncertain, nor is it changing. There have been dozens of papers now, all saying the same thing: natural infection is at least as protective (if not more so) than even 3 doses of the current vaccines. If you are hearing otherwise, you are being misinformed. Full stop.
Here's the latest paper in a long line of consistent evidence, last week in the NEJM:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965
> No discernable differences in protection against symptomatic BA.1 and BA.2 infection were seen with previous infection, vaccination, and hybrid immunity. Vaccination enhanced protection among persons who had had a previous infection. Hybrid immunity resulting from previous infection and recent booster vaccination conferred the strongest protection.
Norway is saying what it is, because we know that most people -- vaccinated or previously infected -- will eventually get re-infected. But even if you are re-infected, you will be well-protected against severe illness.
I can understand how previous infection can confer immunity, especially since the immune response is built against live virus, not just spike protein.
What I don’t understand is how vaccination and boosting using an mRNA vaccine that contains only spike protein from the original SARS2, and which is almost completely evaded by the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, can confer protection against severe illnesses caused by those variants.
What is the biochemical process that provides that protection?
EDIT: Is this protection just a happy mantra, or is it actually that there is no protection against the new variants, but the intensity of the disease from them is far less than from the original variant (and our treatment is getting better)?
What I don’t understand is how vaccination and boosting using an mRNA vaccine that contains only spike protein from the original SARS2, and which is almost completely evaded by the BA.4 and BA.5 variants, can confer protection against severe illnesses caused by those variants.
What is the biochemical process that provides that protection?
EDIT: Is this protection just a happy mantra, or is it actually that there is no protection against the new variants, but the intensity of the disease from them is far less than from the original variant (and our treatment is getting better)?
There is protection against the new variants. The human immune system has different levels of protection, and these mRNA vaccines seem particularly effective at triggering one of the most flexible, long-term forms -- cellular immunity.
At a very high level, this is the explanation: the spike protein in Omicron has many differences from the vaccine strain spike, but it's still largely the same protein. The immune system is chopping up the protein into chunks, and T- and B-Cells are specializing to recognize those chunks. This kind of immune response (the "cellular immune response") is slower to ramp up than the antibody response that many people have fixated on, but it's a much more robust defense mechanism; B- and T-Cells are very good at providing generalized antigen recognition. There have been at least 2-3 papers I'm aware of where labs have directly demonstrated that vaccinated people are producing robust immune responses to Omicron proteins.
I'd have to dig these up again, and they're not exactly comprehensible by non-specialists, but the executive summary is that we have laboratory and clinical and epidemiological data that the vaccines are still very effective against severe disease.
What the vaccines don't do anymore, is protect against infection. That was probably never a realistic goal for a respiratory virus, but it's definitely not practical with a vaccine that produces antibodies that target a very old spike protein.
At a very high level, this is the explanation: the spike protein in Omicron has many differences from the vaccine strain spike, but it's still largely the same protein. The immune system is chopping up the protein into chunks, and T- and B-Cells are specializing to recognize those chunks. This kind of immune response (the "cellular immune response") is slower to ramp up than the antibody response that many people have fixated on, but it's a much more robust defense mechanism; B- and T-Cells are very good at providing generalized antigen recognition. There have been at least 2-3 papers I'm aware of where labs have directly demonstrated that vaccinated people are producing robust immune responses to Omicron proteins.
I'd have to dig these up again, and they're not exactly comprehensible by non-specialists, but the executive summary is that we have laboratory and clinical and epidemiological data that the vaccines are still very effective against severe disease.
What the vaccines don't do anymore, is protect against infection. That was probably never a realistic goal for a respiratory virus, but it's definitely not practical with a vaccine that produces antibodies that target a very old spike protein.
If you have a link, I’d be interested in reading the paper!
Here's one from Cell -- as I said, it's very technical, but the TL;DR is that 84% of CD4+ and 85% of CD8+ memory T cell responses to the Omicron spike protein are preserved, compared to an average of 90% and 87% respectively for the other variants:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286742...
Here's another:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04460-3
> Between 70% and 80% of the CD4+ and CD8+ T cell response to spike was maintained across study groups. Moreover, the magnitude of Omicron cross-reactive T cells was similar for Beta (B.1.351) and Delta (B.1.617.2) variants, despite Omicron harbouring considerably more mutations. In patients who were hospitalized with Omicron infections (n = 19), there were comparable T cell responses to ancestral spike, nucleocapsid and membrane proteins to those in patients hospitalized in previous waves dominated by the ancestral, Beta or Delta variants (n = 49). Thus, despite extensive mutations and reduced susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies of Omicron, the majority of T cell responses induced by vaccination or infection cross-recognize the variant.
I may have read a third, but I can't find it easily, and these two should be more than enough to back up what I wrote / get you started.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286742...
Here's another:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04460-3
> Between 70% and 80% of the CD4+ and CD8+ T cell response to spike was maintained across study groups. Moreover, the magnitude of Omicron cross-reactive T cells was similar for Beta (B.1.351) and Delta (B.1.617.2) variants, despite Omicron harbouring considerably more mutations. In patients who were hospitalized with Omicron infections (n = 19), there were comparable T cell responses to ancestral spike, nucleocapsid and membrane proteins to those in patients hospitalized in previous waves dominated by the ancestral, Beta or Delta variants (n = 49). Thus, despite extensive mutations and reduced susceptibility to neutralizing antibodies of Omicron, the majority of T cell responses induced by vaccination or infection cross-recognize the variant.
I may have read a third, but I can't find it easily, and these two should be more than enough to back up what I wrote / get you started.
One theory I have heard to explain this is that the vaccine is simply suppressing immune response, which helps prevent the cytokine storm that led to severe disease. Of course, this might also make infection more likely, which may explain why so many governments have stopped publishing the case rate breakdowns by vax status.
It makes a kind of intuitive sense: if you make your own body produce some key portion of the virus, maybe your immune system gets tricked into thinking it's not such a big issue?
It makes a kind of intuitive sense: if you make your own body produce some key portion of the virus, maybe your immune system gets tricked into thinking it's not such a big issue?
> the vaccine is simply suppressing immune response, which helps prevent the cytokine storm that led to severe disease.
"Response" is many different things. The vaccine boosts response b/c you have antibodies, so it's much less likely that your body has to do a hail mary las ditch (cytok storm).
> why so many governments have stopped publishing the case rate breakdowns by vax status.
But there's enough data out there to have a clear picture: vaccines or previous infections won't protect you from being infected by the recent strains (BA.2.75, BA.5, etc) but will protect you from severe disease or dying. Maybe it can be improved by nasal vaccines (what happened to those?) but who knows...
> It makes a kind of intuitive sense: if you make your own body produce some key portion of the virus, maybe your immune system gets tricked into thinking it's not such a big issue?
This one is completely off the mark. For starters, not all vaccines have your "body produce part of the virus", yet all help to prevent severe cases and death.
"Response" is many different things. The vaccine boosts response b/c you have antibodies, so it's much less likely that your body has to do a hail mary las ditch (cytok storm).
> why so many governments have stopped publishing the case rate breakdowns by vax status.
But there's enough data out there to have a clear picture: vaccines or previous infections won't protect you from being infected by the recent strains (BA.2.75, BA.5, etc) but will protect you from severe disease or dying. Maybe it can be improved by nasal vaccines (what happened to those?) but who knows...
> It makes a kind of intuitive sense: if you make your own body produce some key portion of the virus, maybe your immune system gets tricked into thinking it's not such a big issue?
This one is completely off the mark. For starters, not all vaccines have your "body produce part of the virus", yet all help to prevent severe cases and death.
Symptomatic infection is not the point of vaccination. The important bit is this: “Previous infection alone, BNT162b2 vaccination alone, and hybrid immunity all showed strong effectiveness (>70%) against severe, critical, or fatal Covid-19 due to BA.2 infection.” Though they didn’t list actual percentages, other studies showed vaccination provided ~90% reduction in deaths.
That said there are conflicting studies: “This report details the findings of a case-control evaluation of the association between vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in Kentucky during May–June 2021 among persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020. Kentucky residents who were not vaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated (odds ratio [OR] = 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.58–3.47).” https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
The nuances are complicated. False positives are a real concern for people avoiding vaccination. People that survive the first infection without vaccination are a meaningfully different population than the vaccinated population. Similarly people that get vaccinated after infection have received vaccination more recently etc.
That said there are conflicting studies: “This report details the findings of a case-control evaluation of the association between vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in Kentucky during May–June 2021 among persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020. Kentucky residents who were not vaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated (odds ratio [OR] = 2.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.58–3.47).” https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
The nuances are complicated. False positives are a real concern for people avoiding vaccination. People that survive the first infection without vaccination are a meaningfully different population than the vaccinated population. Similarly people that get vaccinated after infection have received vaccination more recently etc.
That MMWR study was a pile of flaming garbage. First, it was conducted in May 2021 (before the Delta wave) so everyone who was vaccinated was well within the first few months of their second dose. We now know that protection against infection rapidly fell after about 4 months.
But also, it was just methodologically flawed -- they didn't bother to correct for the bias that people who were vaccinated after infection in early 2021 were probably behaving differently than those who had not been vaccinated at that time.
If you're going to cite an old MMWR article as "evidence" against the now overwhelming pile of papers demonstrating that the immune system works pretty much as we expect from immmunology 101, don't forget that in early 2022 they released this much better, much larger (N=1.1M people) cohort study, which dramatically showed the opposite of what you're claiming. Prior infection obviously provided robust protection against Delta, on par with the vaccines:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/pdfs/mm7104e1-H.pdf
But also, it was just methodologically flawed -- they didn't bother to correct for the bias that people who were vaccinated after infection in early 2021 were probably behaving differently than those who had not been vaccinated at that time.
If you're going to cite an old MMWR article as "evidence" against the now overwhelming pile of papers demonstrating that the immune system works pretty much as we expect from immmunology 101, don't forget that in early 2022 they released this much better, much larger (N=1.1M people) cohort study, which dramatically showed the opposite of what you're claiming. Prior infection obviously provided robust protection against Delta, on par with the vaccines:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/pdfs/mm7104e1-H.pdf
> the immune system [still] works pretty much as we expect from immunology 101
Shocker. Why did we have to learn this again? How were the policies that diverged from the immunology 101-based position justified? This should be our starting point and we should not base policies on the opposite conclusion without good evidence to the contrary.
Shocker. Why did we have to learn this again? How were the policies that diverged from the immunology 101-based position justified? This should be our starting point and we should not base policies on the opposite conclusion without good evidence to the contrary.
The question isn’t if catching COVID provides some level of protection, the question is if people who have gotten COVID should also get vaccinated.
Saying a study is garbage when you disagree with the results is not how evidence based medicine works. Unless there was actual fraud or gross incompetence, every study should provide something of value.
Hypothetically, if vaccination provides enhanced short term protection for people after catching COVID which also provides short term protection then recommending waiting X months after getting COVID to get vaccinated is one option. Alternatively, if post COVID vaccination did absolutely nothing then you could recommend skipping it, ignoring false positives.
Saying a study is garbage when you disagree with the results is not how evidence based medicine works. Unless there was actual fraud or gross incompetence, every study should provide something of value.
Hypothetically, if vaccination provides enhanced short term protection for people after catching COVID which also provides short term protection then recommending waiting X months after getting COVID to get vaccinated is one option. Alternatively, if post COVID vaccination did absolutely nothing then you could recommend skipping it, ignoring false positives.
The study was garbage not because I personally disagree with the results, but because of the reasons I stated:
1) in retrospect it was obviously incorrect, and
2) even at the time, a reasonable scientist could have concluded that it was flawed
I don't generally call papers "flaming garbage", but some are so egregiously, transparently awful -- at the time of publication -- that saying otherwise is dishonest. That MMWR study was one.
1) in retrospect it was obviously incorrect, and
2) even at the time, a reasonable scientist could have concluded that it was flawed
I don't generally call papers "flaming garbage", but some are so egregiously, transparently awful -- at the time of publication -- that saying otherwise is dishonest. That MMWR study was one.
“But also, it was just methodologically flawed -- they didn't bother to correct for the bias that people who were vaccinated after infection in early 2021 were probably behaving differently than those who had not been vaccinated at that time.”
Your only complaint relevant at the time of publication was people that where vaccinated acted differently, that’s also true of the study you linked. It wasn’t double blinded making it “hot garbage” by your logic. Presumably the only reason you linked it was it didn’t contradict your assumptions, even though it failed to address the actual question of how useful post COVID vaccination is.
Except we care about real world outcomes so a double blind study would be less relevant making your original complaint pointless.
Your only complaint relevant at the time of publication was people that where vaccinated acted differently, that’s also true of the study you linked. It wasn’t double blinded making it “hot garbage” by your logic. Presumably the only reason you linked it was it didn’t contradict your assumptions, even though it failed to address the actual question of how useful post COVID vaccination is.
Except we care about real world outcomes so a double blind study would be less relevant making your original complaint pointless.
What's odd is how many people ignored, denied or actively resisted the idea of natural infection conferring immunity.
That isn't it at all, the question isn't "does natural immunity happen", but "what's the overall population cost of natural immunity".
Long covid, and greater impact on certain individuals were well known by that point. Just saying "let 'er rip, go natural immunity" isn't the responsible move. Perhaps you're ok with the risks for you, but faulting a health officer for taking a different more conservative position is hardly a reasonable opinion.
Long covid, and greater impact on certain individuals were well known by that point. Just saying "let 'er rip, go natural immunity" isn't the responsible move. Perhaps you're ok with the risks for you, but faulting a health officer for taking a different more conservative position is hardly a reasonable opinion.
> Long covid, and greater impact on certain individuals were well known by that point.
"Long covid" is not defined. There is no test. There is no objective signature. Literally anyone can claim that they have it, and not be wrong. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I'm telling you that we have no idea how prevalent "it" is, and we don't have any idea how "it" compares to the consequences of other common respiratory illnesses. We've simply never bothered to look, and uncontrolled studies where someone enumerates a long list of things that happened after Covid, in a large group of people, are not evidence of those things being caused by Covid.
Said differently: if you have a nearly ubiquitous illness, how can you say anything about causality regarding anything that follows?
So what we have here is a pile of questionable research, a large group of people who are scared and demanding that action be taken, and politicians who are more than willing to "take action" by pushing aside, censoring, and otherwise bullying the scientists who stand in the way of their actions.
"Long covid" is not defined. There is no test. There is no objective signature. Literally anyone can claim that they have it, and not be wrong. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I'm telling you that we have no idea how prevalent "it" is, and we don't have any idea how "it" compares to the consequences of other common respiratory illnesses. We've simply never bothered to look, and uncontrolled studies where someone enumerates a long list of things that happened after Covid, in a large group of people, are not evidence of those things being caused by Covid.
Said differently: if you have a nearly ubiquitous illness, how can you say anything about causality regarding anything that follows?
So what we have here is a pile of questionable research, a large group of people who are scared and demanding that action be taken, and politicians who are more than willing to "take action" by pushing aside, censoring, and otherwise bullying the scientists who stand in the way of their actions.
>I'm not saying it doesn't exist
okay, well, others with relevant qualifications are saying it DOES exist, so since nobody seems to be saying it doesn't, I guess we can go with their expert conclusions.
okay, well, others with relevant qualifications are saying it DOES exist, so since nobody seems to be saying it doesn't, I guess we can go with their expert conclusions.
The point of the article is that people with relevant qualifications are saying things like that, whilst also saying in private "this is wrong but I just need to get to retirement".
Pretty much anything public health people say on the topic of COVID turns out to be wrong on close inspection. It's really astounding. Even very basic things like getting an actual clinical definition of COVID itself (let alone long COVID) turns out to be impossible, which is why the official definition governments use is "got a positive on a COVID test". That's not actually a disease symptom but COVID isn't defined by symptoms any more than long COVID is.
The reason this happens is that public health is an authoritarian collectivist concept - the government will make decisions for the collective good even if individuals must suffer as a consequence. The entire culture of that space is dominated by a mindset that says, "we will obtain compliance by making scientific sounding claims, because people respect science and will follow it". That's why COVID research is so full of conflicting and nonsensical claims.
Pretty much anything public health people say on the topic of COVID turns out to be wrong on close inspection. It's really astounding. Even very basic things like getting an actual clinical definition of COVID itself (let alone long COVID) turns out to be impossible, which is why the official definition governments use is "got a positive on a COVID test". That's not actually a disease symptom but COVID isn't defined by symptoms any more than long COVID is.
The reason this happens is that public health is an authoritarian collectivist concept - the government will make decisions for the collective good even if individuals must suffer as a consequence. The entire culture of that space is dominated by a mindset that says, "we will obtain compliance by making scientific sounding claims, because people respect science and will follow it". That's why COVID research is so full of conflicting and nonsensical claims.
[deleted]
> That isn't it at all, the question isn't "does natural immunity happen", but "what's the overall population cost of natural immunity".
Do you think we all have the memory of goldfish? In the height of the pandemic people were saying natural immunity was insufficient to prevent further infection to the degree that would matter the few who were talking about the "cost of natural immunity" (or any other sort of level headed adult discussion about tradeoffs) were ridiculed as enabling the anti-vaxers.
>Perhaps you're ok with the risks for you, but faulting a health officer for taking a different more conservative position is hardly a reasonable opinion.
This is a two way street. If you get to be conservative about natural immunity the other guys get to be conservative about the vax.
Do you think we all have the memory of goldfish? In the height of the pandemic people were saying natural immunity was insufficient to prevent further infection to the degree that would matter the few who were talking about the "cost of natural immunity" (or any other sort of level headed adult discussion about tradeoffs) were ridiculed as enabling the anti-vaxers.
>Perhaps you're ok with the risks for you, but faulting a health officer for taking a different more conservative position is hardly a reasonable opinion.
This is a two way street. If you get to be conservative about natural immunity the other guys get to be conservative about the vax.
There has been an alarming pattern of public health communication throughout the pandemic: public official (Fauci, WHO official, CDC Director, President, Governor, etc.) makes assertion A about COVID, questioning of assertion A is harshly criticized as anti-science, racist, right wing, wanting to kill grandma . . . Six to twelve months later, the same public health establishment admits not only was assertion A not true, but it was never believed by said establishment.
Most blatant examples:
- Masks are not protective
- The vaccine prevents infection (entire basis for mandates)
- There is no evidence for lab leak
- Natural immunity is not as effective as vaccine immunity
- the virus is not spread via aerosols
Most blatant examples:
- Masks are not protective
- The vaccine prevents infection (entire basis for mandates)
- There is no evidence for lab leak
- Natural immunity is not as effective as vaccine immunity
- the virus is not spread via aerosols
It's more like while you're obtaining "natural immunity", you're shedding virus that infects others. Similarly with masks, they weakly protect you from others, they strongly protect others from you.
I feel like everywhere I look in the anti-COVID-vax community, no one reckons with the fact that their position gets others sick, and those people might die. Even this article focuses strongly on children not needing masks or vaccines, mentioning not at all kids getting others sick.
Some cites:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33721405/
https://hms.harvard.edu/news/children-spread-covid-19
https://ufhealth.org/news/2021/uf-study-sheds-light-roles-ch...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7156154/
I feel like everywhere I look in the anti-COVID-vax community, no one reckons with the fact that their position gets others sick, and those people might die. Even this article focuses strongly on children not needing masks or vaccines, mentioning not at all kids getting others sick.
Some cites:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33721405/
https://hms.harvard.edu/news/children-spread-covid-19
https://ufhealth.org/news/2021/uf-study-sheds-light-roles-ch...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7156154/
And at the same time supported severe covid restrictions until a vaccine is available. The paradox of course is that the likelihood of there being an efficient vaccine is very low if you don’t develop immunity naturally.
> the likelihood of there being an efficient vaccine is very low if you don’t develop immunity naturally
where did you read this?
where did you read this?
The way traditional vaccines work is by injecting an attenuated virus and letting the natural immunity do the rest. If natural immunity doesn’t work on the original virus, it is unlikely it will work on the attenuated virus.
what does that have to do with the restrictions? the logical corollary to your statement seems to be, if the body IS capable of natural immunity, then it is likely that it will work on the attenuated virus (provided it's not too attenuated, maybe)
> The protective effect of prior infection is not uncertain, nor is it changing.
The paper you linked shows effectiveness of previous infection alone at 46%, 3 vaccine doses at 52% (and slightly above the upper end of the confidence interval for infection only), and previous infection and 3 doses at 77%. When I looked for earlier studies, the first one that popped up was this one from Sept 2021, which finds that previous infection gives a 90% reduced risk re-infection.
This seems to be consistent with what has been reported more popularly; in 2020-2021 it seemed that the immune benefit from a previous infection could last several months, and that this informed the timing on when boosters were recommended. Whereas now it seems it's significantly easier to be re-infected with an omicron variant relatively soon after a previous infection.
The finding of 90% in late 2021 vs <50% now does sound like the protective effect of prior infection _is_ changing.
The paper you linked shows effectiveness of previous infection alone at 46%, 3 vaccine doses at 52% (and slightly above the upper end of the confidence interval for infection only), and previous infection and 3 doses at 77%. When I looked for earlier studies, the first one that popped up was this one from Sept 2021, which finds that previous infection gives a 90% reduced risk re-infection.
This seems to be consistent with what has been reported more popularly; in 2020-2021 it seemed that the immune benefit from a previous infection could last several months, and that this informed the timing on when boosters were recommended. Whereas now it seems it's significantly easier to be re-infected with an omicron variant relatively soon after a previous infection.
The finding of 90% in late 2021 vs <50% now does sound like the protective effect of prior infection _is_ changing.
You're quoting numbers concerning protection against symptomatic infection. While perhaps scientifically interesting, this is irrelevant. You are going to get Covid multiple times in your life, regardless of your vaccination or infection status.
Look a Figures 1, 2 and 4, and you'll see clearly that protection against severe disease remains quite robust. Protection against severe, critical or fatal Covid-19 due to any Omicron infection is shown at 91% (95% CI 60-100) after prior infection (Figure 2D).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965
Look a Figures 1, 2 and 4, and you'll see clearly that protection against severe disease remains quite robust. Protection against severe, critical or fatal Covid-19 due to any Omicron infection is shown at 91% (95% CI 60-100) after prior infection (Figure 2D).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965
Why is protection against symptomatic infection not relevant? Because the bar for "severe" is set rather high, there's plenty of room for symptomatic illness to be personally, economically, and systematically damaging without being "severe", and I think a lot of people find that waning protection to be quite relevant.
> You are going to get Covid multiple times in your life, regardless of your vaccination or infection status.
Yeah but whether you expect to get it once every couple years or multiple times a year is meaningful to what living in a post-covid world looks like.
Earlier your very firm statement did not qualify the unchanged protective effect as being limited to severe, critical or fatal disease, and I think you're moving goalposts.
> The protective effect of prior infection is not uncertain, nor is it changing.
> You are going to get Covid multiple times in your life, regardless of your vaccination or infection status.
Yeah but whether you expect to get it once every couple years or multiple times a year is meaningful to what living in a post-covid world looks like.
Earlier your very firm statement did not qualify the unchanged protective effect as being limited to severe, critical or fatal disease, and I think you're moving goalposts.
> The protective effect of prior infection is not uncertain, nor is it changing.
If you're going to quote me, quote me -- don't paraphrase me and leave out essential context. Here is what I wrote:
> The protective effect of prior infection is not uncertain, nor is it changing. There have been dozens of papers now, all saying the same thing: natural infection is at least as protective (if not more so) than even 3 doses of the current vaccines.
I was saying that natural infection is equivalent to vaccination -- if not better. Then, in the same comment, I explicitly said that none of this will prevent re-infection:
> Norway is saying what it is, because we know that most people -- vaccinated or previously infected -- will eventually get re-infected. But even if you are re-infected, you will be well-protected against severe illness.
Did people originally overstate the claim that vaccination would prevent infection? Absolutely. Do we now know this to be untrue? Again, absolutely. You're going to be re-infected multiple times in your life. Cannot be helped.
But it's still true that infection and vaccination offer at least equivalent levels of protection. So if you're concerned about the protection of "natural immunity" -- by whatever standard -- then I have bad news for you: the vaccines are no better.
> The protective effect of prior infection is not uncertain, nor is it changing. There have been dozens of papers now, all saying the same thing: natural infection is at least as protective (if not more so) than even 3 doses of the current vaccines.
I was saying that natural infection is equivalent to vaccination -- if not better. Then, in the same comment, I explicitly said that none of this will prevent re-infection:
> Norway is saying what it is, because we know that most people -- vaccinated or previously infected -- will eventually get re-infected. But even if you are re-infected, you will be well-protected against severe illness.
Did people originally overstate the claim that vaccination would prevent infection? Absolutely. Do we now know this to be untrue? Again, absolutely. You're going to be re-infected multiple times in your life. Cannot be helped.
But it's still true that infection and vaccination offer at least equivalent levels of protection. So if you're concerned about the protection of "natural immunity" -- by whatever standard -- then I have bad news for you: the vaccines are no better.
> natural infection is at least as protective (if not more so) than even 3 doses of the current vaccines.
This claim is directly contradicted in the paper you linked:
> The effectiveness of previous infection alone against symptomatic BA.2 infection was 46.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.5 to 51.9).
...
> The effectiveness of three doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was 52.2% (95% CI, 48.1 to 55.9).
This claim is directly contradicted in the paper you linked:
> The effectiveness of previous infection alone against symptomatic BA.2 infection was 46.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.5 to 51.9).
...
> The effectiveness of three doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was 52.2% (95% CI, 48.1 to 55.9).
Those confidence intervals overlap. You're cherry picking one plot, for one outcome, for one vaccine, out of the entire paper, and it's not refuting the conclusion of the paper.
if they overlap, how do you support your statement that the opposite is true?
"natural infection is at least as protective (if not more so) than even 3 doses of the current vaccines."
GP is citing a part of the paper where they show...that natural infection is statistically indistinguishable from 3 doses. QED.
GP is citing a part of the paper where they show...that natural infection is statistically indistinguishable from 3 doses. QED.
I agree - there may be some good stuff here (for all I know) but there's too much obvious unhinged polemic to take it seriously on its face. Someone with stronger mental hinges will need to pick through this and tell us how things shake out.
The author is affiliated with Virginia Governor Youngkin. There is definitely an agenda being pushed here, probably for Youngkin. Interesting that the author is calling for an end to political games within the CDC when he's playing one himself.
Pandemics are hard. If the CDC doesn't present a unified public voice, then a large chunk of the population will latch on to the people they agree with, and no policy would be effective. So I can understand how it came to this.
Ultimately we need someone we can trust running that org (I'm not taking a position here). And not everyone is going to trust them and they will be blamed for any mistakes. Sometimes there isn't time to do the science, so it ends up being an educated guess at maximizing reward vs risk. It's not a position I would want to hold.
Pandemics are hard. If the CDC doesn't present a unified public voice, then a large chunk of the population will latch on to the people they agree with, and no policy would be effective. So I can understand how it came to this.
Ultimately we need someone we can trust running that org (I'm not taking a position here). And not everyone is going to trust them and they will be blamed for any mistakes. Sometimes there isn't time to do the science, so it ends up being an educated guess at maximizing reward vs risk. It's not a position I would want to hold.
There is still a lack of common sense. Anyone who looked at the age distribution of covid patients and deaths knows that there are hardly any children getting sick from covid, and everything I heard points to the few ones having almost always other severe diseases (cancer, etc), so covid being the drop in the bucket.
They are still pushing for vaccine mandates for children that will not change anything materially.
The same applies to mask mandates. The only studies I have seen only show a marginal impact on preventing infections. At the same time we are told new variants (omicron) are many times more contagious that the variants the masks were not really stopping in the first place. Mask mandates have become a similar security theatre than bugging old ladies with their liquids at airport security.
The problem is that on insisting on measures that even laymen can tell are bullshit, they are undermining the credibility they will need the day there is something that needs to be done that will make a difference.
Credibility takes decades to build and minutes to lose. Look at Ukraine. No one believed the US intelligence when they claimed Putin was serious about invading, because of the bullshit they pushed 20 years earlier with Iraq.
They are still pushing for vaccine mandates for children that will not change anything materially.
The same applies to mask mandates. The only studies I have seen only show a marginal impact on preventing infections. At the same time we are told new variants (omicron) are many times more contagious that the variants the masks were not really stopping in the first place. Mask mandates have become a similar security theatre than bugging old ladies with their liquids at airport security.
The problem is that on insisting on measures that even laymen can tell are bullshit, they are undermining the credibility they will need the day there is something that needs to be done that will make a difference.
Credibility takes decades to build and minutes to lose. Look at Ukraine. No one believed the US intelligence when they claimed Putin was serious about invading, because of the bullshit they pushed 20 years earlier with Iraq.
> There is still a lack of common sense. Anyone who looked at the age distribution of covid patients and deaths knows that there are hardly any children getting sick from covid, and everything I heard points to the few ones having almost always other severe diseases (cancer, etc), so covid being the drop in the bucket.
> They are still pushing for vaccine mandates for children that will not change anything materially.
I don't really understand this thinking. Yes, covid deaths in the under 18 group are a drop in the bucket compared to covid deaths in other age groups. But that's only because covid had such a massive toll in other age groups. We're still talking over a thousand deaths in the under 18 group, tens of thousands of hospitalizations, and many many more who had symptoms that persisted beyond a month. Even knocking those numbers down by half would be significant.
And, re masks, the general scientific consensus at this point is that yes, masks do have an effect on transmission rates, and the quality of the mask matters in how much of an impact is seen. Mandates also have an impact, although it depends on how much the mandate actually impacts behavior. It's not security theater, but some mandates will be much more effective than others.
And I'll note - US public health authorities did, in my view, lose some credibility on masks. But for different reasons than you mention. Statements early on saying masks weren't necessary for general use I think did a lot of harm. Personally, I can understand - evidence was weaker for general population usage at the time, and there was a dire shortage of even surgical masks for healthcare workers. So, I get that they wanted to avoid even more shortages for healthcare workers, but this original messaging really hurt later on when masks were being recommended. My second complaint is that, once the supply was there for surgical masks (and then for N95 and equivalents), public health authorities were really slow to push better masks, and only meekly did so.
> Credibility takes decades to build and minutes to lose. Look at Ukraine. No one believed the US intelligence when they claimed Putin was serious about invading, because of the bullshit they pushed 20 years earlier with Iraq.
Lots of us who were entirely skeptical of US intelligence re Iraq found US intelligence re Putin's intent to invade entirely believable and plausible.
I don't really understand this thinking. Yes, covid deaths in the under 18 group are a drop in the bucket compared to covid deaths in other age groups. But that's only because covid had such a massive toll in other age groups. We're still talking over a thousand deaths in the under 18 group, tens of thousands of hospitalizations, and many many more who had symptoms that persisted beyond a month. Even knocking those numbers down by half would be significant.
And, re masks, the general scientific consensus at this point is that yes, masks do have an effect on transmission rates, and the quality of the mask matters in how much of an impact is seen. Mandates also have an impact, although it depends on how much the mandate actually impacts behavior. It's not security theater, but some mandates will be much more effective than others.
And I'll note - US public health authorities did, in my view, lose some credibility on masks. But for different reasons than you mention. Statements early on saying masks weren't necessary for general use I think did a lot of harm. Personally, I can understand - evidence was weaker for general population usage at the time, and there was a dire shortage of even surgical masks for healthcare workers. So, I get that they wanted to avoid even more shortages for healthcare workers, but this original messaging really hurt later on when masks were being recommended. My second complaint is that, once the supply was there for surgical masks (and then for N95 and equivalents), public health authorities were really slow to push better masks, and only meekly did so.
> Credibility takes decades to build and minutes to lose. Look at Ukraine. No one believed the US intelligence when they claimed Putin was serious about invading, because of the bullshit they pushed 20 years earlier with Iraq.
Lots of us who were entirely skeptical of US intelligence re Iraq found US intelligence re Putin's intent to invade entirely believable and plausible.
You are conflating what makes sense to you with what makes sense to most people.
> I don't really understand this thinking. Yes, covid deaths in the under 18 group are a drop in the bucket compared to covid deaths in other age groups. But that's only because covid had such a massive toll in other age groups. We're still talking over a thousand deaths in the under 18 group, tens of thousands of hospitalizations, and many many more who had symptoms that persisted beyond a month. Even knocking those numbers down by half would be significant.
You are ignoring the comorbidities aspect GP was talking about.
> It's not security theater
Cloth masks are security theater. Nobody’s disputing properly worn N95s. GP is talking about what has been pushed for two years and the credibility that has been destroyed. They’re not talking about recent shifts.
> I don't really understand this thinking. Yes, covid deaths in the under 18 group are a drop in the bucket compared to covid deaths in other age groups. But that's only because covid had such a massive toll in other age groups. We're still talking over a thousand deaths in the under 18 group, tens of thousands of hospitalizations, and many many more who had symptoms that persisted beyond a month. Even knocking those numbers down by half would be significant.
You are ignoring the comorbidities aspect GP was talking about.
> It's not security theater
Cloth masks are security theater. Nobody’s disputing properly worn N95s. GP is talking about what has been pushed for two years and the credibility that has been destroyed. They’re not talking about recent shifts.
> You are ignoring the comorbidities aspect GP was talking about.
Even if we split this into two groups - those under 18 with comorbidities, and those without, there's still good evidence for both groups to get vaccinated. I don't know if there is a good breakdown nationally, but even just looking at NYC, the evidence becomes compelling. NYC has a dataset that breaks down deaths by age group and by comorbidity status:
https://github.com/nychealth/coronavirus-data/blob/master/to...
For under 18, as of 9/11/21 (yes, I wish they'd push a more recent update), 29 total deaths, 19 with an underlying condition, 5 without, and 5 pending/unknown. Underlying conditions by NYC's metric is pretty broad:
> Underlying conditions currently include diabetes, lung disease, cancer, immunodeficiency, heart disease, hypertension, asthma, kidney disease, gastrointestinal/liver disease, and obesity.
So, in New York City alone, and as of nearly a year ago, you had 5 kids under the age of 18 with no known underlying conditions who died of Covid. Just an educated guess, but it's quite plausible we've had 100+ deaths nationally in the under 18 with no underlying conditions group. That alone is pretty strong evidence in favor of vaccinating everyone in the under 18 group, and not just those with underlying conditions.
All that said, the primary reason for vaccine mandates for schools is related to transmission. And here too, there is good efficacy.
Ultimately, the harm/benefit calculation is quite clear in favor of vaccinations for kids, outside of rare scenarios. The main debate is whether the risk of backlash from schools mandating vaccination is worth the clear benefits of increasing vaccine uptake in these age groups.
> Cloth masks are security theater. Nobody’s disputing properly worn N95s. GP is talking about what has been pushed for two years and the credibility that has been destroyed. They’re not talking about recent shifts.
Cloth masks reduce transmission. They're not great at doing so, but they do still have an effect. Surgical masks are better. KN94/N95/etc are much better. Yes, we should have long ago moved to surgical as the minimum viable mask in mask mandate scenarios. It's unfortunate that we didn't. But even still, cloth masks do still help a small amount.
Even if we split this into two groups - those under 18 with comorbidities, and those without, there's still good evidence for both groups to get vaccinated. I don't know if there is a good breakdown nationally, but even just looking at NYC, the evidence becomes compelling. NYC has a dataset that breaks down deaths by age group and by comorbidity status:
https://github.com/nychealth/coronavirus-data/blob/master/to...
For under 18, as of 9/11/21 (yes, I wish they'd push a more recent update), 29 total deaths, 19 with an underlying condition, 5 without, and 5 pending/unknown. Underlying conditions by NYC's metric is pretty broad:
> Underlying conditions currently include diabetes, lung disease, cancer, immunodeficiency, heart disease, hypertension, asthma, kidney disease, gastrointestinal/liver disease, and obesity.
So, in New York City alone, and as of nearly a year ago, you had 5 kids under the age of 18 with no known underlying conditions who died of Covid. Just an educated guess, but it's quite plausible we've had 100+ deaths nationally in the under 18 with no underlying conditions group. That alone is pretty strong evidence in favor of vaccinating everyone in the under 18 group, and not just those with underlying conditions.
All that said, the primary reason for vaccine mandates for schools is related to transmission. And here too, there is good efficacy.
Ultimately, the harm/benefit calculation is quite clear in favor of vaccinations for kids, outside of rare scenarios. The main debate is whether the risk of backlash from schools mandating vaccination is worth the clear benefits of increasing vaccine uptake in these age groups.
> Cloth masks are security theater. Nobody’s disputing properly worn N95s. GP is talking about what has been pushed for two years and the credibility that has been destroyed. They’re not talking about recent shifts.
Cloth masks reduce transmission. They're not great at doing so, but they do still have an effect. Surgical masks are better. KN94/N95/etc are much better. Yes, we should have long ago moved to surgical as the minimum viable mask in mask mandate scenarios. It's unfortunate that we didn't. But even still, cloth masks do still help a small amount.
> we've had 100+ deaths nationally in the under 18 with no underlying conditions group. That alone is pretty strong evidence in favor of vaccinating everyone in the under 18 group, and not just those with underlying conditions.
That is perhaps beyond the measure of the study to even conclude that those are properly labelled data points. It is such a small number it would make sense to publish a report detailing exactly how each death played out, when they likely were exposed, by whom, and as best as possible what they were doing each hour of the days leading to death. They may have had no known underlying condition but what was unique about their situation that it led to death? Can this really happen to anyone as you seem to be suggesting? Surely it would be prudent to be sure? Advocating for mandated vaccines based on that slim evidence is not an exercise in harm reduction, its reckless.
That is perhaps beyond the measure of the study to even conclude that those are properly labelled data points. It is such a small number it would make sense to publish a report detailing exactly how each death played out, when they likely were exposed, by whom, and as best as possible what they were doing each hour of the days leading to death. They may have had no known underlying condition but what was unique about their situation that it led to death? Can this really happen to anyone as you seem to be suggesting? Surely it would be prudent to be sure? Advocating for mandated vaccines based on that slim evidence is not an exercise in harm reduction, its reckless.
these objections have been raised and shot down plenty of times. for example, the framing "there are hardly any children getting sick from covid" disregards the utility of reducing children as a transmission vector, and "The only studies I have seen only show a marginal impact on preventing infections" disregards the protection they afford by arbitrarily labeling it as "marginal"
>No one believed the US intelligence when they claimed Putin was serious about invading
I don't know from where you draw this conclusion, considering his track record of doing it previously in Ukraine in 2014, and Georgia before that, and given his moving of an entire army to the border, and subsequently issuing threatening ultimatums to the world they knew the world would never subjugate themselves to
>No one believed the US intelligence when they claimed Putin was serious about invading
I don't know from where you draw this conclusion, considering his track record of doing it previously in Ukraine in 2014, and Georgia before that, and given his moving of an entire army to the border, and subsequently issuing threatening ultimatums to the world they knew the world would never subjugate themselves to
A lot these these conflicts that appear to be about science are really about values. Many of the people making arguments about COVID's relatively low danger to children are doing so because they believe the mitigations (lockdowns, remote schooling, masking) are harmful and not worth the benefit of reducing transmission. While those arguing in favor, believe the costs to children are worth it.
cm2187(1)
It's quite tiresome when some people, on being presented with distressing information about the government, insist that it be ignored because the information doesn't come from left wing sources. Who of course would never report on these stories to begin with. It's a form of psychological defence, not a legitimate response.
"Ultimately we need someone we can trust running that org (I'm not taking a position here)"
Or, those organizations should just be scrapped. There's no fundamental reason a CDC must exist. Sweden's CDC boiled down to one man, and his entire policy response was to tell people to chill out. The country was rewarded with better outcomes than most other places - lower COVID mortality than the European average, less economic damage, way less damage to the fabric of society and so on.
Given the CDC's performance it's pretty clear it has no idea how to control diseases and isn't even institutionally capable of maintaining a very basic, grandmother level understanding of respiratory diseases (natural immunity exists, seasonality is important, not actually everyone will get ill simultaneously, etc).
"Ultimately we need someone we can trust running that org (I'm not taking a position here)"
Or, those organizations should just be scrapped. There's no fundamental reason a CDC must exist. Sweden's CDC boiled down to one man, and his entire policy response was to tell people to chill out. The country was rewarded with better outcomes than most other places - lower COVID mortality than the European average, less economic damage, way less damage to the fabric of society and so on.
Given the CDC's performance it's pretty clear it has no idea how to control diseases and isn't even institutionally capable of maintaining a very basic, grandmother level understanding of respiratory diseases (natural immunity exists, seasonality is important, not actually everyone will get ill simultaneously, etc).
_sigh_ Do Americans really go and check which team a doctor plays for before deciding whether to take their recommendations seriously? If he was affiliated with a Democratic governor, somehow I don't think it would be brought up with the same implication.
Go read the Wikipedia page for Dr. Makary; he's a well published and awarded researcher, not a partisan hack like your comment makes him out to be. It's distressing to me that in America "he/she supports a different party than I do" is enough reason to cast doubt on an entire career of great work.
Go read the Wikipedia page for Dr. Makary; he's a well published and awarded researcher, not a partisan hack like your comment makes him out to be. It's distressing to me that in America "he/she supports a different party than I do" is enough reason to cast doubt on an entire career of great work.
America is effectively two nations forced into one at this point.
Doctors were literally paid to push certain drugs. They are not infallible nor perfect, and they can just as easily be paid to say untrue things as anyone else.
> If he was affiliated with a Democratic governor, somehow I don't think it would be brought up with the same implication.
It would be, but from the other side (e.g. Dr Fauci anyone?)
> If he was affiliated with a Democratic governor, somehow I don't think it would be brought up with the same implication.
It would be, but from the other side (e.g. Dr Fauci anyone?)
Of course they can, I don't see anyone debating that point. Dr. Makary actually spent part of his career working _against_ profit-seeking doctors and predatory hospitals. I'm not sure why you're bringing that up in the first place, unless you have some specific bone to pick with him, and if you do I'm curious what it is. What you're saying is just as misdirected as if we were talking about engineers and I pointed out that they can be literally paid to write bad code, they are neither infallible nor perfect, and can just as easily be paid to say untrue things as anyone else.
>It would be, but from the other side (e.g. Dr Fauci anyone?)
You've actually illustrated my point very well here. What I'm saying is that it's great that places like HN are largely able to discuss public health at face value, rather than through the Red v. Blue lens that most Americans insist on reducing things to. Unfortunately, as soon as you accuse "the other side" of doing just about anything, your intentions are revealed, the water is muddied, and the discussion becomes useless.
>It would be, but from the other side (e.g. Dr Fauci anyone?)
You've actually illustrated my point very well here. What I'm saying is that it's great that places like HN are largely able to discuss public health at face value, rather than through the Red v. Blue lens that most Americans insist on reducing things to. Unfortunately, as soon as you accuse "the other side" of doing just about anything, your intentions are revealed, the water is muddied, and the discussion becomes useless.
Someone simply mentioned his affiliation. I don't see a problem. This doctor is dabbling in policy, not whether or not my prescription is still good. Policy means politics. His background therefore matters.
> What I'm saying is that it's great that places like HN are largely able to discuss public health at face value, rather than through the Red v. Blue lens that most Americans insist on reducing things to.
Not really true anymore, sadly.
> What I'm saying is that it's great that places like HN are largely able to discuss public health at face value, rather than through the Red v. Blue lens that most Americans insist on reducing things to.
Not really true anymore, sadly.
Take a look at the rest of the site, it’s obviously more political propaganda than news. Whatever reasonable points there may be in this article - and there may well be some - are purely incidental.
bshipp(4)
Another aspect is the legal overreach that isn't much discussed. Things such as quarantine rules, various mandates, eviction bans without relief, etc.
I think they had good intentions behind them and may have been necessary from certain points of view, but there are questions about their legality and continue to be challenged and some overturned.
I think they had good intentions behind them and may have been necessary from certain points of view, but there are questions about their legality and continue to be challenged and some overturned.
> I think they had good intentions behind them
All policies have good intentions. Whether it's that nobody is the villain in their own story or that the worst tyrannies are those done for the sake of their victims, having good intentions really doesn't count for much.
All policies have good intentions. Whether it's that nobody is the villain in their own story or that the worst tyrannies are those done for the sake of their victims, having good intentions really doesn't count for much.
That is conflating two types of good intentions. One is that the writers have did intentions for society (what the parents means) or that they are good for a little group who write them. I don’t think anyone believes tax cuts for the richest is good for society anymore, and certainly not the people who wrote them last time around. They just wanted to pay less tax.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Remember when US health policy makers told people NOT to wear masks in the beginning of the pandemic?
>If the evidence available on the efficacy of vaccines for kids is so ridiculously wide that it goes from -99% to +370% risk of infection, then surely Norway is _also_ drastically overstating its case
Not necessarily. You can have the data and you can have bad data. You can selectively ignore the good data to come to a drastically different decision and conclusion. Motivated thinking political or otherwise can bias the data that you select.
Not necessarily. You can have the data and you can have bad data. You can selectively ignore the good data to come to a drastically different decision and conclusion. Motivated thinking political or otherwise can bias the data that you select.
There was never any valid justification for closing schools. It was a complete overreaction. Sweden kept primary schools open throughout the pandemic (without a mask mandate) and they did fine.
Agreed. I have a number of criticisms of the CDC, FDA and public institutions with respect to Covid, but this piece is highly biased and is misleading/wrong/cherry-picking with respect to the science. It seems the author has a general position of "interventions bad" and then works back from that to discredit anything related to interventions.
For example, let's take just this single paragraph:
> As of February, 75% of children in the U.S. already had natural immunity from prior infection. It could easily be over 90% of children today given how ubiquitous Omicron has been since then. The CDC’s own research shows that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity and a recent New England Journal of Medicine study from Israel has questioned the benefits of vaccinating previously infected persons. Many countries have long credited natural immunity towards vaccine mandates. But not the U.S.
First, there's this statement: "The CDC’s own research shows that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity." The linked study, reading through it, makes a different claim. The study showed that completion of a course of primary vaccination PLUS having had a prior Covid infection led to reduced severe outcomes more than just having had the primary course of vaccination alone. And even there, the CI (0.27 (0.09–0.84)) on the first scenario overlaps with the CI for vaccination alone.
It would be notable if this showed that prior infection alone conferred better protection than vaccination alone, which is the author's claim. This study doesn't show that. It shows infection plus vaccination confers better immunity than vaccination alone. And, well, that's what basically any expert would have predicted as the most likely result.
The second linked study (the NEJM one) gets closer, but largely only looks at infection rates (it does have some commentary on severe covid-19 rates, but this isn't adjusted for any confounders). It's most useful as a study on how immunity against infection wanes since the last immunity-conferring event, although it allows for some cross comparisons, such as comparing infection rates for natural immunity alone vs 2 doses alone vs 3 doses alone vs hybrid immunity. Possibly the biggest caveat is that the rate of testing for the different cohorts wasn't adjusted for:
> Although differences in testing rates among cohorts and among subcohorts within specified cohorts were observed, their overall magnitude was relatively small. The rate of PCR testing was typically lower in the recovered, unvaccinated cohort than in the other cohorts, so the level of protection in this cohort as compared with that in the two-dose cohort may have been overestimated.
So, it makes it harder to directly compare across cohorts. But, even assuming the cross comparison does hold up if you did correct for testing rates, there are a couple of things to call out in this study. First, three doses had significantly better numbers than two doses. However, the three-dose cohort was new at the time of this study, so this cohort only has results for the very first time slice, and that time slice doesn't exist for the natural immunity scenario, so we can't directly compare them. Second, this study also seems to show, with respect to immunity, that infection followed by vaccination is better than infection alone.
Third, and most notably given this piece's commentary, is vaccination after natural immunity has waned. The study linked explicitly ends with this sentence in its discussion section:
> We found that protection against the delta variant waned over time in both vaccinated and previously infected persons and that an additional vaccine dose restored protection.
Let's look back at the wording in the original piece:
> a recent New England Journal of Medicine study from Israel has questioned the benefits of vaccinating previously infected persons
It is telling that a study that ends by recommending a dose of vaccine to restore waning natural immunity is used to "question the benefits of vaccinating previously infected persons" in this piece.
Now, there's a reasonable debate around how previous infection should be counted w.r.t. to immune status. E.g. one can make a reasonable case that documented prior infection plus a single dose should count as "fully vaccinated." Or, that hitting a minimum threshold on an antibody test should count as documentation of immunity. Etc. But, that's not what the piece is arguing - it misrepresents both of the studies linked in this one paragraph, and then puts forward a conclusion that is unsupported by either study. If anything, both studies provide evidence that is quite supportive of getting vaccinated at some point after infection, yet you'd never know that if you just read the paragraph from this piece.
Pieces like this one are frustrating because they have the veneer of legitimacy - written by someone in the field, linking studies, etc. It takes a lot of time to really dive in to understand whether or not the claims being made are supported. And even then, it often takes broader knowledge of the state of research in the field. It's easy to cherry pick research that supports a bias while simply leaving out competing research.
Ultimately, this piece does not come off as a good faith review of the scientific evidence.
For example, let's take just this single paragraph:
> As of February, 75% of children in the U.S. already had natural immunity from prior infection. It could easily be over 90% of children today given how ubiquitous Omicron has been since then. The CDC’s own research shows that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity and a recent New England Journal of Medicine study from Israel has questioned the benefits of vaccinating previously infected persons. Many countries have long credited natural immunity towards vaccine mandates. But not the U.S.
First, there's this statement: "The CDC’s own research shows that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity." The linked study, reading through it, makes a different claim. The study showed that completion of a course of primary vaccination PLUS having had a prior Covid infection led to reduced severe outcomes more than just having had the primary course of vaccination alone. And even there, the CI (0.27 (0.09–0.84)) on the first scenario overlaps with the CI for vaccination alone.
It would be notable if this showed that prior infection alone conferred better protection than vaccination alone, which is the author's claim. This study doesn't show that. It shows infection plus vaccination confers better immunity than vaccination alone. And, well, that's what basically any expert would have predicted as the most likely result.
The second linked study (the NEJM one) gets closer, but largely only looks at infection rates (it does have some commentary on severe covid-19 rates, but this isn't adjusted for any confounders). It's most useful as a study on how immunity against infection wanes since the last immunity-conferring event, although it allows for some cross comparisons, such as comparing infection rates for natural immunity alone vs 2 doses alone vs 3 doses alone vs hybrid immunity. Possibly the biggest caveat is that the rate of testing for the different cohorts wasn't adjusted for:
> Although differences in testing rates among cohorts and among subcohorts within specified cohorts were observed, their overall magnitude was relatively small. The rate of PCR testing was typically lower in the recovered, unvaccinated cohort than in the other cohorts, so the level of protection in this cohort as compared with that in the two-dose cohort may have been overestimated.
So, it makes it harder to directly compare across cohorts. But, even assuming the cross comparison does hold up if you did correct for testing rates, there are a couple of things to call out in this study. First, three doses had significantly better numbers than two doses. However, the three-dose cohort was new at the time of this study, so this cohort only has results for the very first time slice, and that time slice doesn't exist for the natural immunity scenario, so we can't directly compare them. Second, this study also seems to show, with respect to immunity, that infection followed by vaccination is better than infection alone.
Third, and most notably given this piece's commentary, is vaccination after natural immunity has waned. The study linked explicitly ends with this sentence in its discussion section:
> We found that protection against the delta variant waned over time in both vaccinated and previously infected persons and that an additional vaccine dose restored protection.
Let's look back at the wording in the original piece:
> a recent New England Journal of Medicine study from Israel has questioned the benefits of vaccinating previously infected persons
It is telling that a study that ends by recommending a dose of vaccine to restore waning natural immunity is used to "question the benefits of vaccinating previously infected persons" in this piece.
Now, there's a reasonable debate around how previous infection should be counted w.r.t. to immune status. E.g. one can make a reasonable case that documented prior infection plus a single dose should count as "fully vaccinated." Or, that hitting a minimum threshold on an antibody test should count as documentation of immunity. Etc. But, that's not what the piece is arguing - it misrepresents both of the studies linked in this one paragraph, and then puts forward a conclusion that is unsupported by either study. If anything, both studies provide evidence that is quite supportive of getting vaccinated at some point after infection, yet you'd never know that if you just read the paragraph from this piece.
Pieces like this one are frustrating because they have the veneer of legitimacy - written by someone in the field, linking studies, etc. It takes a lot of time to really dive in to understand whether or not the claims being made are supported. And even then, it often takes broader knowledge of the state of research in the field. It's easy to cherry pick research that supports a bias while simply leaving out competing research.
Ultimately, this piece does not come off as a good faith review of the scientific evidence.
[deleted]
No one ever admits they were wrong anymore. They just say "decisions are complex".
It's complicated.
It's complicated.
I think with complex policy questions, we have to draw finer distinctions than "were you wrong?"
- did you make a reasonable decision with the information available at the time, but later evidence showed that another decision would likely have had better outcomes?
- did you make a poor decision which missed or disregarded information available when you made the choice?
- did you make a choice which was appropriate for your declared aims at the time, but now priorities have changed?
These decisions _are_ complex. That doesn't mean we can't find fault and demand improvement. But I think it's not constructive to merely highlight the negative outcomes; we have to find better processes which would make smarter choices next time.
- did you make a reasonable decision with the information available at the time, but later evidence showed that another decision would likely have had better outcomes?
- did you make a poor decision which missed or disregarded information available when you made the choice?
- did you make a choice which was appropriate for your declared aims at the time, but now priorities have changed?
These decisions _are_ complex. That doesn't mean we can't find fault and demand improvement. But I think it's not constructive to merely highlight the negative outcomes; we have to find better processes which would make smarter choices next time.
Expert opinion isn't very valuable with an out like that. Sure make recommendations, but if you want to use the force of law (ultimately a man with a gun) someone needs to be held to account when it turns out you were wrong.
Definitely, if you made a poor decision which missed or disregarded information available when you made the choice, you should be held accountable.
If you made a trade-off that folks of a certain political persuasion believe was the wrong trade-off, but most people and most qualified experts believe was a reasonable trade-off? That's the job.
If you made a trade-off that folks of a certain political persuasion believe was the wrong trade-off, but most people and most qualified experts believe was a reasonable trade-off? That's the job.
The experts can't be the ones to decide if the cure was worse than the disease or not for the same reason we can't have the police decide if a shooting was justified. Leadership is about responsibility, really the experts shouldn't be able to use the force of law at all, that should be left to politicians who can be voted out.
> The experts can't be the ones to decide
a minority of laymen who started with a conclusion and have yet to make a convincing case for it to either the experts OR the majority of americans, can't be the ones to decide, for the same reason we can't have them decide if a shooting is justified.
not sure why people qualified to do so, like public health experts and the politicians briefed by them who the people elected, can't be, though.
a minority of laymen who started with a conclusion and have yet to make a convincing case for it to either the experts OR the majority of americans, can't be the ones to decide, for the same reason we can't have them decide if a shooting is justified.
not sure why people qualified to do so, like public health experts and the politicians briefed by them who the people elected, can't be, though.
Who said anything about a minority of laymen? Imagine 5 years from now we learn that the vaccine was a clear net negative for certain populations that were forced to take it. It doesn't really matter if the experts were "acting on the best available evidence" or whatever excuse they want to make, they removed the choice from a group of people, when you remove choice you are responsible for the outcome.
> Who said anything about a minority of laymen?
the opposite of an expert is a layman. Neither a majority of experts, nor a majority of laymen, have, after analyzing the issue as you have, come to the same conclusion you have, that the trade off decisions showed bad judgement
> It doesn't really matter if the experts were "acting on the best available evidence"
is this just you stating your opinion, or do you have a compelling argument to convince a majority of americans that they should also believe this?
the opposite of an expert is a layman. Neither a majority of experts, nor a majority of laymen, have, after analyzing the issue as you have, come to the same conclusion you have, that the trade off decisions showed bad judgement
> It doesn't really matter if the experts were "acting on the best available evidence"
is this just you stating your opinion, or do you have a compelling argument to convince a majority of americans that they should also believe this?
> come to the same conclusion you have, that the trade off decisions showed bad judgement
Where do I argue that? It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative. The positive effects are much more immediate, we have a generation of kids that how to grow up now to see how their development was impacted for example.
> is this just you stating your opinion, or do you have a compelling argument to convince a majority of americans that they should also believe this?
This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years. You can find elements of what I am saying in the Code of Hammurabi, The Art of War, as well as the Magna Carta. If a general orders his men to run into a minefield, even if he doesn't know that it is one, even if he uses the best available evidence, he is responsible for their deaths because he gave the order. That's the reason we play hail to the chief when the president walks into a room, that's why he gets to eat fancy dinners and hobnob with celebrities, that is the reward for the great risk you take for being responsible. Leaders eat first because they take responsibility, to have leaders who only take authority is unworkable, it is tyranny manifest.
Where do I argue that? It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative. The positive effects are much more immediate, we have a generation of kids that how to grow up now to see how their development was impacted for example.
> is this just you stating your opinion, or do you have a compelling argument to convince a majority of americans that they should also believe this?
This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years. You can find elements of what I am saying in the Code of Hammurabi, The Art of War, as well as the Magna Carta. If a general orders his men to run into a minefield, even if he doesn't know that it is one, even if he uses the best available evidence, he is responsible for their deaths because he gave the order. That's the reason we play hail to the chief when the president walks into a room, that's why he gets to eat fancy dinners and hobnob with celebrities, that is the reward for the great risk you take for being responsible. Leaders eat first because they take responsibility, to have leaders who only take authority is unworkable, it is tyranny manifest.
> Where do I argue that?
when you argued with this:
> If you made a trade-off that folks of a certain political persuasion believe was the wrong trade-off, but most people and most qualified experts believe was a reasonable trade-off? That's the job.
If you believe that it's not for a majority of experts to decide, or for a majority of laymen to decide, or for a majority of americans to decide, then who do you think should make the decision?
>It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative.
sure, and as soon as a majority of experts, maybe even of Americans, believe that the trade-off showed poor judgment, then we can talk about it as if it did
>This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years.
this is not how people believe leadership works in the US at least, where people (not you personally, clearly) judge based on the circumstances present at the time of the action being judged, not at the time of judgement
most people understand that the CDC is a normal org like any other, or indeed, like any normal person, which tries its best to do what it can with what it has, and aren't expected to be able to predict the future
when you argued with this:
> If you made a trade-off that folks of a certain political persuasion believe was the wrong trade-off, but most people and most qualified experts believe was a reasonable trade-off? That's the job.
If you believe that it's not for a majority of experts to decide, or for a majority of laymen to decide, or for a majority of americans to decide, then who do you think should make the decision?
>It's going to be years until we understand if the effects were net positive or negative.
sure, and as soon as a majority of experts, maybe even of Americans, believe that the trade-off showed poor judgment, then we can talk about it as if it did
>This is how leadership has worked for four thousand years.
this is not how people believe leadership works in the US at least, where people (not you personally, clearly) judge based on the circumstances present at the time of the action being judged, not at the time of judgement
most people understand that the CDC is a normal org like any other, or indeed, like any normal person, which tries its best to do what it can with what it has, and aren't expected to be able to predict the future
> when you argued with this:
did you forget something here?
> If you believe that it's not for a majority of experts are not to decide, and a majority of laymen are not to decide, and a majority of Americans are not to decide, then who do you think should make the decision?
Democracy. In our system of government we elect leaders, those leaders are responsible to the people who have elected them. This has been sidestepped in recent decades by appointing experts who have the ability to use the force of law without explicit congressional approval. This is unconstitutional and the supreme court in the past year has twice affirmed this view[0][1]. We can't allow our leaders to hide behind people that they themselves have appointed when those appointees make choices that may have disastrous consequences.
> most people understand that the CDC is a normal org like any other, or indeed, like any normal person, which tries its best to do what it can with what it has, and aren't expected to be able to predict the future
Funny they didn't mention that while making proclamations from on high. "I did my best" is of little comfort to someone harmed by their choices.
[0]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
[1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
did you forget something here?
> If you believe that it's not for a majority of experts are not to decide, and a majority of laymen are not to decide, and a majority of Americans are not to decide, then who do you think should make the decision?
Democracy. In our system of government we elect leaders, those leaders are responsible to the people who have elected them. This has been sidestepped in recent decades by appointing experts who have the ability to use the force of law without explicit congressional approval. This is unconstitutional and the supreme court in the past year has twice affirmed this view[0][1]. We can't allow our leaders to hide behind people that they themselves have appointed when those appointees make choices that may have disastrous consequences.
> most people understand that the CDC is a normal org like any other, or indeed, like any normal person, which tries its best to do what it can with what it has, and aren't expected to be able to predict the future
Funny they didn't mention that while making proclamations from on high. "I did my best" is of little comfort to someone harmed by their choices.
[0]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a23_ap6c.pdf
[1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
All of those outcomes should start with the admission that, you were wrong. Then you can start the discussion about why.
But it’s not the same thing. I think lockdowns were clearly on the balance correct and in my province we on two occasions emerged from lockdown too soon causing a number of health complications. We also ended masking too soon and have made society basically unliveable for anyone who is immunocompromised given their heightened risk since most of the mask protection comes from other people’s masks not their own. It’s downright shameful that we are throwing away people’s lives for minor inconveniences. Almost every immunocompromised kid in the province is back in online schooling while many of them attended schools during mandatory masking. They are getting all the negatives that we were concerned about for everyone with school closures but suddenly that’s less important than freedom from masks. Good societies protect their most vulnerable and we instead choose to intentionally throw them under the bus for very minor conveniences.
>Since most of the mask protection comes from other people’s masks not their own.
Thats a bit outdated information. Yes, some cloth mask doesnt protect you. A correctly worn N95 however does offer a ~99%+ protection against contracting COVID. Once they are available in enough numbers to go to non medicinal personal as well, which they have been for years at this point, personal protection does absolutely work.
Thats a bit outdated information. Yes, some cloth mask doesnt protect you. A correctly worn N95 however does offer a ~99%+ protection against contracting COVID. Once they are available in enough numbers to go to non medicinal personal as well, which they have been for years at this point, personal protection does absolutely work.
I have no idea if this is a valid article, the use of so many anonymous sources made me doubt every word. For all I know they are quoting someone on reddit claiming to work for the cdc. Every quote could have just been made up. It very much just appears to be opinion pretending to be news.
With that said, I do agree with the proposal that if a kid has already had covid then why vaccinate them if the general consensus is that the vaccines only provide limited protection for a few months. All for vaccinating high risk people and I am vaccinated against covid with a booster from when they first came out but will not get another booster now that I have already had Covid. Omicron in general for most people is no worse than the flu, unpleasant but bearable. I fully understand the rush to vaccinate adults in the beginning when Delta was raging and we had limited understanding of the virus. Luckily Omicron is dominant now it seems to be much less damaging. This is not to downplay the very real consequences and deaths that do occur still from Covid. At this point in time my whole family has had it and I have accepted it as endemic and moved on.
With that said, I do agree with the proposal that if a kid has already had covid then why vaccinate them if the general consensus is that the vaccines only provide limited protection for a few months. All for vaccinating high risk people and I am vaccinated against covid with a booster from when they first came out but will not get another booster now that I have already had Covid. Omicron in general for most people is no worse than the flu, unpleasant but bearable. I fully understand the rush to vaccinate adults in the beginning when Delta was raging and we had limited understanding of the virus. Luckily Omicron is dominant now it seems to be much less damaging. This is not to downplay the very real consequences and deaths that do occur still from Covid. At this point in time my whole family has had it and I have accepted it as endemic and moved on.
> Omicron in general for most people is no worse than the flu, unpleasant but bearable.
Flu in the US kills around 12k to 50k per year, with a particularly bad year every few decades getting up to maybe 80k. Omicron killed somewhere between 150k and 250k in the US in less than a year, and that was with free vaccines that were highly effective against death easily available to pretty much everyone who was not a young child.
That doesn't sound like no worse than the flu to me.
Flu in the US kills around 12k to 50k per year, with a particularly bad year every few decades getting up to maybe 80k. Omicron killed somewhere between 150k and 250k in the US in less than a year, and that was with free vaccines that were highly effective against death easily available to pretty much everyone who was not a young child.
That doesn't sound like no worse than the flu to me.
I am not saying you are wrong and in my original comment I was careful to specify that I was not attempting to downplay its significance. With that said in my personal experience Covid hit me like the flu. I had an elevated temperature for a couple days, was achy and tired. Affected my kids and spouse in the same way. If someone wants to vaccinate their kids, that's their choice and I'll be the last person to disparage that choice. Personally I don't see the need.
HWR_14(2)
Another big difference is how much pressure COVID can exert on the hospital system. The COVID hospitalization rates are magnitudes larger than the worst ever flu season.
From covid or with Covid? Covid is treated differently than the flu in healthcare. They naturally have been testing all admissions for Covid. If someone comes in for a broken arm and test positive, then they’re counted against the Covid numbers.
Flu numbers typically are a small sample size and extrapolated based on respiratory-like illness admissions in hospitals nationwide.
Flu numbers typically are a small sample size and extrapolated based on respiratory-like illness admissions in hospitals nationwide.
> If someone comes in for a broken arm and test positive, then they’re counted against the Covid numbers.
You know you have to substantiate such a wild claim, right? Nobody is counting patients with broken arms that happen to have Covid as Covid patients.
You know you have to substantiate such a wild claim, right? Nobody is counting patients with broken arms that happen to have Covid as Covid patients.
Dr. Birx back in 2020: "If Someone Dies With COVID-19 We Are Counting That As A COVID-19 Death"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/08/dr_birx_u...
In March 2022 (this year), sleuthing by members of the public into inflated pediatric death counts resulted in the CDC deleting 72k alleged covid deaths, blaming a coding error for the overcount: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/24/cdc-coding-err...
In one county in Colorado, a coroner pointed out that 2 of 5 covid deaths were actually due to gunshot wounds: "Grand County Coroner Raises Concern On Deaths Among COVID Cases" (Dec 2020): https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/grand-county-covid-dea...
The way that a "covid case" or alleged "covid death" has been counted may have improved over the past 2 years, but 70+ thousand purported covid deaths were just admitted to have been illusory a few months ago and there most definitely have been significant financial incentives for hospitals to claim a particular patient had covid and further incentives for specific treatments (remdesivir, placing them on a vent, etc.).
In March 2022 (this year), sleuthing by members of the public into inflated pediatric death counts resulted in the CDC deleting 72k alleged covid deaths, blaming a coding error for the overcount: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/24/cdc-coding-err...
In one county in Colorado, a coroner pointed out that 2 of 5 covid deaths were actually due to gunshot wounds: "Grand County Coroner Raises Concern On Deaths Among COVID Cases" (Dec 2020): https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/grand-county-covid-dea...
The way that a "covid case" or alleged "covid death" has been counted may have improved over the past 2 years, but 70+ thousand purported covid deaths were just admitted to have been illusory a few months ago and there most definitely have been significant financial incentives for hospitals to claim a particular patient had covid and further incentives for specific treatments (remdesivir, placing them on a vent, etc.).
I don't know why you're asking for substantiation, that is common knowledge to anyone paying attention. Almost half of hospital COVID-19 patients were admitted for something else and only incidentally tested positive on admission.
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid-patients-nyc-hospitals...
https://www.businessinsider.com/covid-patients-nyc-hospitals...
This is a common problem with COVID-19 threads on HN now. Happened to me several times in the past weeks. It's interesting but also very concerning just how large the knowledge gap has become between people who still support the public health restrictions and everyone else. Almost any fact you present, regardless of how basic or well known you think it is, will run into someone who thinks it's wild and crazy and has never encountered it before. That's true even if it's been admitted in public by the people who literally run the public health response!
The cause seems to be aggressive filter bubbling. We see it above too - there are highly upvoted people saying nothing more than "it can't be true, I don't believe it, it must be a right wing conspiracy". Any information that undermines government narratives just gets mentally erased, causing a distressed reaction of "that claim is CRAZY" to almost any attempt to discuss known data or facts.
The cause seems to be aggressive filter bubbling. We see it above too - there are highly upvoted people saying nothing more than "it can't be true, I don't believe it, it must be a right wing conspiracy". Any information that undermines government narratives just gets mentally erased, causing a distressed reaction of "that claim is CRAZY" to almost any attempt to discuss known data or facts.
Firstly the date on the link you provided is from Jan 11, 2022, 9:52 AM so it's a little dated when considering a fast moving pandemic.
Further googling reveals this similar headline: "Over 40% of NYC’s COVID-infected hospital patients admitted for other reasons"
This then begs the question, if in fact 60% of people are going to hospital because of COVID that indicates a very big problem.
Hospitals by their design are always meant to be full and their size will be determined based on an expected amount of demand.
If the hospital contains these unexpected COVID cases that then means many people who need to go to hospital will not be going to hospital only because the beds are taken up by these COVID patients.
Further googling reveals this similar headline: "Over 40% of NYC’s COVID-infected hospital patients admitted for other reasons"
This then begs the question, if in fact 60% of people are going to hospital because of COVID that indicates a very big problem.
Hospitals by their design are always meant to be full and their size will be determined based on an expected amount of demand.
If the hospital contains these unexpected COVID cases that then means many people who need to go to hospital will not be going to hospital only because the beds are taken up by these COVID patients.
Respectfully, I think you are misinterpreting that headline. It's saying that of all the patients that tested positive for covid at the hospital, 40% of them were actually there for another reason. So a guy could be there for a broken arm and test positive for covid while there. He just needs to be treated for the broken arm, not covid.
If you have just one patient in hospital with COVID and no other ailment that will represent a degradation of the 'normal' operation of the hospital.
If you have 10% of the hospital population in hospital with COVID (and just for COVID) you will have degraded the performance of the hospital by 10%.
This is because hospitals are designed to operate at maximum capacity (i.e all the beds are in use and there is a waiting list to get a bed). Every bed in use by a COVID patient will just add someone to the waiting list.
So my question would be what percentage of patients are in hospital because of COVID and only because of COVID?
That number is a very good measure of the pressure that hospital system will be under and my guess is it will be much greater than 10%.
If you have 10% of the hospital population in hospital with COVID (and just for COVID) you will have degraded the performance of the hospital by 10%.
This is because hospitals are designed to operate at maximum capacity (i.e all the beds are in use and there is a waiting list to get a bed). Every bed in use by a COVID patient will just add someone to the waiting list.
So my question would be what percentage of patients are in hospital because of COVID and only because of COVID?
That number is a very good measure of the pressure that hospital system will be under and my guess is it will be much greater than 10%.
Hospitals are not designed to operate at maximum capacity.
On any given day, our hospitals — by design — operate at 90 to 100% capacity. That's why we have sought waivers to allow critical access hospitals to operate above their licensed capacity Peel wrote.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/01/jeff-jacks...
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/01/jeff-jacks...
> Firstly the date on the link you provided is from Jan 11, 2022, 9:52 AM so it's a little dated when considering a fast moving pandemic.
January 2022 would include ~3/4ths of the pandemic's time and deaths so far.
January 2022 would include ~3/4ths of the pandemic's time and deaths so far.
This widely varies by countries, as well as often states. It entails what criteria you use for your statistic and how you collect the data. Because unfortunately data collection is one of those things that is assumed to be trivial, but actually quite difficult and costly. Especially in the beginning, you just took the rate of positively tested patients. Because you could do so at a single point in your hospital, the testing center. Figuring out information concerning individual patients means having to collect this information for every individual as well.
Let me also point out that this wasnt some grand failure. We were in a situation in which what ever information we could get was really helpful. But you have to be aware, that there is not magic box somewhere that spits out perfect information. All data collection has its limitations, its why we still know very little about long covid. Because getting that data is incredibly difficult, especially at scale.
Let me also point out that this wasnt some grand failure. We were in a situation in which what ever information we could get was really helpful. But you have to be aware, that there is not magic box somewhere that spits out perfect information. All data collection has its limitations, its why we still know very little about long covid. Because getting that data is incredibly difficult, especially at scale.
Someone with a broken arm will most certainly take up a seat in the hospital waiting room, but would be unlikely to be taking up a bed in hospital.
Someone with COVID could well be in hospital for weeks if not months and if things get serious they could end up taking a bed in the ICU.
It would be highly unlikely to see someone in ICU with just a broken arm.
Someone with COVID could well be in hospital for weeks if not months and if things get serious they could end up taking a bed in the ICU.
It would be highly unlikely to see someone in ICU with just a broken arm.
[deleted]
Don’t forget long covid is estimated at roughly 20%, which is quite significant.
Which vaccines have very little influence on.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01453-0 relating to the study https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01840-0
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01453-0 relating to the study https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01840-0
That’s not what the thread is about:
> Omicron in general for most people is no worse than the flu, unpleasant but bearable.
> Omicron in general for most people is no worse than the flu, unpleasant but bearable.
I know, i was agreeing with you. The long covid numbers are what makes COVID worse. I was pointing out that there is no way around those.
Before covid, doctors were trying desperately to sensibilize people about the danger of the flu to no avail. It was common for flu death to not be marked as such on the death certificate.
But covid is different because it is under the spotlight and faces more scrutinity. And the disctinction as covid being the main cause, a comobidity or a unrelated pathology was never clearly made since the beginning of the pandemic.
But covid is different because it is under the spotlight and faces more scrutinity. And the disctinction as covid being the main cause, a comobidity or a unrelated pathology was never clearly made since the beginning of the pandemic.
Only 13000 people in the US die of AIDS each year. Is the flu worse than AIDS? How about rabies? Less than five deaths per year in the US. What would you rather have. I'll even concede that Omicron has a higher infection fatality rate than the typical flu strain, but both are well under 1% and those death totals have much more to do with transmissibility than severity.
This article is nuts and the citations of "compelling studies" are by the authors themselves AND pre-print without peer review... Even at first pass, the following statement is bonkers:
"Then they ignored natural immunity. Wrong again. The vast majority of children have already had Covid, but this has made no difference in the blanket mandates for childhood vaccines. And now, by mandating vaccines and boosters for young healthy people, with no strong supporting data, these agencies are only further eroding public trust."
What the fuck is "natural immunity" when we have had 5 variants of omnicron and infection doesn't provide immunity to the other variants?
The real crime IMO, is that... U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren't ‘Following the Science,’... the science of how we could actually reduce spread and decrease the 350~ DEATHS per day adding to the more than 1 Million dead already.
"Then they ignored natural immunity. Wrong again. The vast majority of children have already had Covid, but this has made no difference in the blanket mandates for childhood vaccines. And now, by mandating vaccines and boosters for young healthy people, with no strong supporting data, these agencies are only further eroding public trust."
What the fuck is "natural immunity" when we have had 5 variants of omnicron and infection doesn't provide immunity to the other variants?
The real crime IMO, is that... U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren't ‘Following the Science,’... the science of how we could actually reduce spread and decrease the 350~ DEATHS per day adding to the more than 1 Million dead already.
> What the fuck is "natural immunity" when we have had 5 variants of omnicron and infection doesn't provide immunity to the other variants?
It still provides a very high degree of protection against severe disease, which is already vanishingly rare in children without comorbidities. And is also all you get from the vaccines, along with all their attendant known and unknown risks.
It still provides a very high degree of protection against severe disease, which is already vanishingly rare in children without comorbidities. And is also all you get from the vaccines, along with all their attendant known and unknown risks.
Articles like this keep cropping up here and they're always flooded with comments that admit ignorance or uncertainty but then indulge the article with personal opinions. It's weird.
Server6(1)
The arguments they make regarding children's vaccines don't make much sense to me. The end target for the pediatric vaccine trials was immunobridging, which has widely been used for other common childhood vaccines. Are they arguing against those as well? If so, that goes against a widely accepted and validated strategy to bridge adult vaccines down to pediatric age groups. Efficacy is a very complicated thing to measure as variants change. The symptomatic disease efficacy seen for the pediatric trials compare well vs. Omicron to what we've seen for adults, so it's all consistent and makes sense. Also, would they argue against the annual flu shots? We don't even run efficacy trials for those every year for different strain compositions.
Also, a bit of perspective: we vaccinate children for many illnesses that would result in comparatively "small" numbers of pediatric deaths (lower than Covid even!). The reason is that even rare pediatric deaths, if preventable, are terrible given the life-years lost. And there HAVE been FAR too many pediatric Covid deaths by our modern standards for pediatric infectious diseases. If Covid only affected kids, the absolute numbers of deaths would be a very worrisome thing. Second, the possibility of long-term complications from even non-fatal illnesses. For pediatric COVID, MIS-C and potential super antigen links to the recent spread of pediatric hepatitis are more than sufficient to meet that bar.
Finally - there was no safety signal seen in the 5-12 year old pediatric vaccines that have been given out to millions for ~year already, and no signal in the under 5 trials as well. The myocarditis risk primarily seems in teenage and older groups and linked to puberty/adolescent hormones.
There may be contrarian voices in the FDA and CDC as there will be in any large organization. But to believe their voices over the consensus requires a heavy dose of motivated reasoning and not engaging with some basic facts about the goals of pediatric vaccines and the ways vaccine trials work. There's a reason every pediatrician parent I know was first in line to get their kids vaccinated.
Also, a bit of perspective: we vaccinate children for many illnesses that would result in comparatively "small" numbers of pediatric deaths (lower than Covid even!). The reason is that even rare pediatric deaths, if preventable, are terrible given the life-years lost. And there HAVE been FAR too many pediatric Covid deaths by our modern standards for pediatric infectious diseases. If Covid only affected kids, the absolute numbers of deaths would be a very worrisome thing. Second, the possibility of long-term complications from even non-fatal illnesses. For pediatric COVID, MIS-C and potential super antigen links to the recent spread of pediatric hepatitis are more than sufficient to meet that bar.
Finally - there was no safety signal seen in the 5-12 year old pediatric vaccines that have been given out to millions for ~year already, and no signal in the under 5 trials as well. The myocarditis risk primarily seems in teenage and older groups and linked to puberty/adolescent hormones.
There may be contrarian voices in the FDA and CDC as there will be in any large organization. But to believe their voices over the consensus requires a heavy dose of motivated reasoning and not engaging with some basic facts about the goals of pediatric vaccines and the ways vaccine trials work. There's a reason every pediatrician parent I know was first in line to get their kids vaccinated.
> there HAVE been FAR too many pediatric Covid deaths
Let's see your numbers of <6 years and <8 etc.
> If Covid only affected kids
In all age groups, it affected children the least.
'In total, 540,305 people were tested for SARS-COV-2 and 129,704 (24.0%) were positive. In children aged <16 years, 35,200 tests were performed and 1408 (4.0%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 19.1%–34.9% adults.' https://adc.bmj.com/content/105/12/1180
Let's see your numbers of <6 years and <8 etc.
> If Covid only affected kids
In all age groups, it affected children the least.
'In total, 540,305 people were tested for SARS-COV-2 and 129,704 (24.0%) were positive. In children aged <16 years, 35,200 tests were performed and 1408 (4.0%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 19.1%–34.9% adults.' https://adc.bmj.com/content/105/12/1180
I'm not too sure about the "your" part, but it looks like the CDC says 453 for 0-4y.
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-...
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-Focus-...
Died WITH COVID, not OF COVID. Let's be clear about what they are counting.
More kids have died in the same period from drowning in America.
More kids have died in the same period from drowning in America.
Nope, this isn’t true. If a kid comes to a hospital due to an accident and tests Covid positive and dies, that would not be counted. It is ultimately the judgment of the physician (as is the case for illnesses in general since a judgment is often needed to tie the proximate cause of death - say respiratory failure - to and underlying illness.
https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/how-are-covid-19-deaths-c...
https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/how-are-covid-19-deaths-c...
Dr. Deborah Birx in April 2020: "If Someone Dies With COVID-19 We Are Counting That As A COVID-19 Death"
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/08/dr_birx_u...!
A few months ago, the CDC quietly cut the covid death toll by 72k: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/24/cdc-coding-err...
People who died for any reason within weeks of a positive covid test result were being counted as covid deaths, even gunshot victim: https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/grand-county-covid-dea...
The loosey-goosey way covid deaths have been counted in the USA, inflating the death toll, seems to be an area of curiously selective collective amnesia.
A few months ago, the CDC quietly cut the covid death toll by 72k: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/24/cdc-coding-err...
People who died for any reason within weeks of a positive covid test result were being counted as covid deaths, even gunshot victim: https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/grand-county-covid-dea...
The loosey-goosey way covid deaths have been counted in the USA, inflating the death toll, seems to be an area of curiously selective collective amnesia.
From your article:
> An elderly man arrived at Atlanta’s Emory University Hospital Midtown last month so stricken with advanced cancer that it could take his life within months ... Was his death caused by COVID-19? ... Yes, Auld says: “While he was very weak and frail from his underlying cancer, his death was undoubtedly accelerated and precipitated by COVID-19.
> An elderly man arrived at Atlanta’s Emory University Hospital Midtown last month so stricken with advanced cancer that it could take his life within months ... Was his death caused by COVID-19? ... Yes, Auld says: “While he was very weak and frail from his underlying cancer, his death was undoubtedly accelerated and precipitated by COVID-19.
I’m curious. You’ve posted something boneheaded and wrong and been proven so in the responses. Will you issue a mea culpa or will you just quietly crawl away and keep spreading falsehoods in other threads? So often, it’s the latter.
CDC says,
'Every year in the United States there are an estimated:
3,960* fatal unintentional drownings'
https://www.cdc.gov/drowning/facts/index.html
With enough amplification from drown child's noses some virus fragments might be found. But vaccines won't help with drowning or car crashes, which each kill more children.
With enough amplification from drown child's noses some virus fragments might be found. But vaccines won't help with drowning or car crashes, which each kill more children.
Well if there was a vaccine that reduced the risk of dying from drowning I think you’d definitely want to add it to the childhood vaccination schedule. Again, death rate is not the only metric by which we decide what to vaccinate children for.
What if the hypothetical risk-of-drowning vaccine were found to greatly heighten the young recipients', particularly young males', risk of myocarditis and pericarditis (among other potential adverse effects) and a significant percentage of those who developed myocarditis/pericarditis passed away within a few subsequent years?
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
Based on your link it looks like < 50 / million for a 3 vaccine series?
Don't forget to consider the baseline risk of myocarditis in this cohort as well as the risk of myocarditis with COVID itself.
I'm also not sure where you're finding numbers about the risk of serious morbidity or mortality with COVID-vaccine-associated myocarditis, please share if you know. My impression is that -- much like COVID -- while cases can be serious / fatal, most cases end up making a full recovery without further sequelae.
Don't forget to consider the baseline risk of myocarditis in this cohort as well as the risk of myocarditis with COVID itself.
I'm also not sure where you're finding numbers about the risk of serious morbidity or mortality with COVID-vaccine-associated myocarditis, please share if you know. My impression is that -- much like COVID -- while cases can be serious / fatal, most cases end up making a full recovery without further sequelae.
The myocarditis risk from covid, like most health risks from covid, is higher for the elderly and low for non-elderly people (see huge disparity in myocarditis risk found to result from a 2nd Moderna jab vs. covid infection for males under 40 in Patone et al. on MedRxiv). The mRNA and adenovirus-vector shots do not prevent infection or transmission and recent studies indicate vaccinated persons take longer to clear recent Omicron variants than those who have refused the vaccines [e.g. "Duration of Shedding of Culturable Virus in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) Infection" (see "Figure 1. Viral Decay and Time to Negative Viral Culture."): https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2202092], so younger people aren't helping anyone else by subjecting themselves to the risks of the vaccines. Young, healthy people are being bullied and guilted and tricked into playing Russian roulette, repeatedly to nobody's benefit and at their own very real peril. Having apparently suffered no significant ill effects from a first or second or third shot doesn't even indicate that subsequent shots will be similarly well-tolerated. And myocarditis and pericarditis aren't the only severe or fatal adverse effects being observed. It's madness.
> like most health risks is higher for the elderly
FTFY
> see huge disparity in myocarditis risk found to result from a 2nd Moderna jab vs. covid infection for males under 40 in Patone et al. on MedRxiv
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
""" This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed ... Of the 42,200,614 persons included in the study population, 2,539 (0.006%) were hospitalised or died from myocarditis during the study period; 552 (0.001%) of these events occurred during 1-28 days following any dose of vaccine ... First, we confirm and extend our previous findings in more than 42 million persons that the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than the risk associated with vaccination in the overall population. ... Despite more myocarditis events occurring in older persons, the risk following COVID-19 vaccination was largely restricted to younger males aged less than 40 years, where the risks of myocarditis following vaccination and infection were similar. However, the notable exception was that in younger males receiving a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, the risk of myocarditis was higher following vaccination than infection, with an additional 101 events estimated following a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine compared to 7 events following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test ... Third, although we were able to include 2,136,189 children aged 13 to 17 years old in this analysis, the number of myocarditis events was too small (n=43 in all periods and n=15 in the 1-28 days post vaccination) in this population and precluded an evaluate of risk. ... In summary, the risk of hospital admission or death from myocarditis is greater following COVID-19 infection than following vaccination and remains modest following sequential doses of mRNA vaccine including a third booster dose of BNT162b in the overall population. However, the risk of myocarditis following vaccination is consistently higher in younger males, particularly following a second dose of RNA mRNA-1273 vaccine. """
I'm not sure that this strongly supports your apparent position.
> recent studies indicate vaccinated persons take longer to clear recent Omicron variants than those who have refused the vaccines... so younger people aren't helping anyone else by subjecting themselves to the risks of the vaccines
Except that absolute risk of getting infected in the first place is decreased in a vaccinated cohort. Which is pointed out by the same study you're referencing: "vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of infection and the severity of disease." So that kind of sounds like a way in which they might be helping both themselves and "anyone else."
> And myocarditis and pericarditis aren't the only severe or fatal adverse effects being observed.
What else? At what rates? Because I've certainly care for plenty of (by and large unvaccinated) people that have died from the disease, young (20s-30s, thankfully none younger have died in my care) as well as old.
> It's madness.
In that we agree.
FTFY
> see huge disparity in myocarditis risk found to result from a 2nd Moderna jab vs. covid infection for males under 40 in Patone et al. on MedRxiv
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.23.21268276v...
""" This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed ... Of the 42,200,614 persons included in the study population, 2,539 (0.006%) were hospitalised or died from myocarditis during the study period; 552 (0.001%) of these events occurred during 1-28 days following any dose of vaccine ... First, we confirm and extend our previous findings in more than 42 million persons that the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis following COVID-19 infection is higher than the risk associated with vaccination in the overall population. ... Despite more myocarditis events occurring in older persons, the risk following COVID-19 vaccination was largely restricted to younger males aged less than 40 years, where the risks of myocarditis following vaccination and infection were similar. However, the notable exception was that in younger males receiving a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, the risk of myocarditis was higher following vaccination than infection, with an additional 101 events estimated following a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine compared to 7 events following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test ... Third, although we were able to include 2,136,189 children aged 13 to 17 years old in this analysis, the number of myocarditis events was too small (n=43 in all periods and n=15 in the 1-28 days post vaccination) in this population and precluded an evaluate of risk. ... In summary, the risk of hospital admission or death from myocarditis is greater following COVID-19 infection than following vaccination and remains modest following sequential doses of mRNA vaccine including a third booster dose of BNT162b in the overall population. However, the risk of myocarditis following vaccination is consistently higher in younger males, particularly following a second dose of RNA mRNA-1273 vaccine. """
I'm not sure that this strongly supports your apparent position.
> recent studies indicate vaccinated persons take longer to clear recent Omicron variants than those who have refused the vaccines... so younger people aren't helping anyone else by subjecting themselves to the risks of the vaccines
Except that absolute risk of getting infected in the first place is decreased in a vaccinated cohort. Which is pointed out by the same study you're referencing: "vaccination has been shown to reduce the incidence of infection and the severity of disease." So that kind of sounds like a way in which they might be helping both themselves and "anyone else."
> And myocarditis and pericarditis aren't the only severe or fatal adverse effects being observed.
What else? At what rates? Because I've certainly care for plenty of (by and large unvaccinated) people that have died from the disease, young (20s-30s, thankfully none younger have died in my care) as well as old.
> It's madness.
In that we agree.
What else? At what rates? Because I've certainly care for plenty of (by and
large unvaccinated) people that have died from the disease, young (20s-30s,
thankfully none younger have died in my care) as well as old.
Are you claiming to have personally provided care to large numbers of previously healthy twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings who unambiguously died of covid?
> who died of, not with, covid?
Continuing to return to this distinction is disingenuous and suggests bad faith. I have not seen a single case of a death pronouncement for COVID which has not unambiguously been from COVID. I'm not saying that shenanigans have never happened anywhere in this regard, but I'd guess that I've seen more people die OF COVID than any other single cause over the last few years, so it's hard for me to imagine that a handful of fraudulent cases would move the needle much.
> Were these people in long-term inpatient care / skilled nursing facilities? Or dependent on home health care aides and visiting nurses?
No, none of them. We don't have any of those nearby in my rural location.
> Are you claiming to have personally provided care to large numbers of previously healthy twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings who unambiguously died of covid?
You'd have to define large and "previously healthy." I'd speculate that the dozen or so deaths that I've seen in this category are "plenty" -- more than I've seen in this age group from any other cause in my short career, other than perhaps alcoholism.
I also really don't understand why this is so difficult for people on HN to believe. HN is an interesting place for technical topics, but the threads on medicine truly make me shudder. My one are is subject matter expertise is the one most likely to earn downvotes for some reason.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Continuing to return to this distinction is disingenuous and suggests bad faith. I have not seen a single case of a death pronouncement for COVID which has not unambiguously been from COVID. I'm not saying that shenanigans have never happened anywhere in this regard, but I'd guess that I've seen more people die OF COVID than any other single cause over the last few years, so it's hard for me to imagine that a handful of fraudulent cases would move the needle much.
> Were these people in long-term inpatient care / skilled nursing facilities? Or dependent on home health care aides and visiting nurses?
No, none of them. We don't have any of those nearby in my rural location.
> Are you claiming to have personally provided care to large numbers of previously healthy twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings who unambiguously died of covid?
You'd have to define large and "previously healthy." I'd speculate that the dozen or so deaths that I've seen in this category are "plenty" -- more than I've seen in this age group from any other cause in my short career, other than perhaps alcoholism.
I also really don't understand why this is so difficult for people on HN to believe. HN is an interesting place for technical topics, but the threads on medicine truly make me shudder. My one are is subject matter expertise is the one most likely to earn downvotes for some reason.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As for mortality following clinical myocarditis, you can Google up the figures easily enough. Some authorities and experts have falsely claimed that vax-induced myocarditis was special and resolved without the long-term poor prognosis heretofore associated with myocarditis. Again, this is false.
"Persistent Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in a Cohort of Adolescents with Post-Coronavirus Disease 2019 mRNA Vaccine Myopericarditis" https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00282-7/fulltext
"Persistent Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings in a Cohort of Adolescents with Post-Coronavirus Disease 2019 mRNA Vaccine Myopericarditis" https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00282-7/fulltext
> you can Google up the figures easily enough
Is that right? I just keep hearing that there is some conspiracy trying to obscure the data, I figured it would be unavailable.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34865500/
We report on 139 adolescents and young adults with 140 episodes of suspected myocarditis (49 confirmed, 91 probable) at 26 centers. ... Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were in the intensive care unit, 2 were treated with inotropic/vasoactive support, and none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died. Median hospital stay was 2 days (range, 0-10; IQR, 2-3).
Of 97 patients who underwent cardiac MRI at a median 5 days (range, 0-88; IQR, 3-17) from symptom onset, 75 (77.3%) had abnormal findings: 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria. Among 26 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <55% on echocardiogram, all with follow-up had normalized function (n=25).
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346
Approximately 96% of persons (784/813) were hospitalized and 87% (577/661) of these had resolution of presenting symptoms by hospital discharge. The most common treatment was nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (589/676; 87%).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34734240/
All cases occurred within 2 weeks of a dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine with the majority occurring within 3 days (range 1-13 days) following the second dose (6/7 patients, 86%). Overall, cases were mild, and all patients survived.
COVID-19 Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Adolescents: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34389692/
None of the patients required inotropic, mechanical, or circulatory support. There were no deaths. Follow-up data obtained in 86% of patients at a mean of 35 days revealed resolution of symptoms, arrhythmias, and ventricular dysfunction.
From the paper you linked to:
""" Median hospital length of stay was 2 days (range 1-4 days) with no intensive care unit admission and no significant morbidity or mortality. All patients had resolution of chest pain and down-trending serum troponin level before discharge.
Follow-up cardiac MRI LVEF (57.7 ± 2.8%) was significantly improved from initial (54.5 ± 5.5%, P < .05), and none of the patients had regional wall motion abnormalities. LVEF by echocardiogram was normal for all patients at the time of follow-up. """
Though to be fair -- because I think there are too many shills on both sides of this topic -- it also notes:
""" Notably, in our cohort, although there was significant reduction in LGE at follow-up, abnormal strain persisted for the majority of patients at follow-up. """
So thank you for prompting me to delve a little more into the outcomes of the vaccine-associated myocarditis cases. I feel even more reassured than before -- the cases seem to be exceedingly rare, even in the highest risk demographic. For anyone outside that highest-risk demographic, the risk of COVID-related myocarditis is higher than vaccine-related. When this exceedingly rare complication occurs, the majority of cases result in a brief hospitalization during which they are treated with ibuprofen.
I think it will be interesting to see how the risks of having COVID a second time compare with the risks of vaccination. I think it's fully possible that the immunity from prior infection could drastically reduce the risks of disease and shift the balance, but until this is better understood, it seems that the risks of vaccination seem to be extremely low -- even lower than the risks of COVID, even for the lowest risk demographics.
Is that right? I just keep hearing that there is some conspiracy trying to obscure the data, I figured it would be unavailable.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34865500/
We report on 139 adolescents and young adults with 140 episodes of suspected myocarditis (49 confirmed, 91 probable) at 26 centers. ... Twenty-six patients (18.7%) were in the intensive care unit, 2 were treated with inotropic/vasoactive support, and none required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or died. Median hospital stay was 2 days (range, 0-10; IQR, 2-3).
Of 97 patients who underwent cardiac MRI at a median 5 days (range, 0-88; IQR, 3-17) from symptom onset, 75 (77.3%) had abnormal findings: 74 (76.3%) had late gadolinium enhancement, 54 (55.7%) had myocardial edema, and 49 (50.5%) met Lake Louise criteria. Among 26 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <55% on echocardiogram, all with follow-up had normalized function (n=25).
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346
Approximately 96% of persons (784/813) were hospitalized and 87% (577/661) of these had resolution of presenting symptoms by hospital discharge. The most common treatment was nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (589/676; 87%).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34734240/
All cases occurred within 2 weeks of a dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine with the majority occurring within 3 days (range 1-13 days) following the second dose (6/7 patients, 86%). Overall, cases were mild, and all patients survived.
COVID-19 Vaccination-Associated Myocarditis in Adolescents: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34389692/
None of the patients required inotropic, mechanical, or circulatory support. There were no deaths. Follow-up data obtained in 86% of patients at a mean of 35 days revealed resolution of symptoms, arrhythmias, and ventricular dysfunction.
From the paper you linked to:
""" Median hospital length of stay was 2 days (range 1-4 days) with no intensive care unit admission and no significant morbidity or mortality. All patients had resolution of chest pain and down-trending serum troponin level before discharge.
Follow-up cardiac MRI LVEF (57.7 ± 2.8%) was significantly improved from initial (54.5 ± 5.5%, P < .05), and none of the patients had regional wall motion abnormalities. LVEF by echocardiogram was normal for all patients at the time of follow-up. """
Though to be fair -- because I think there are too many shills on both sides of this topic -- it also notes:
""" Notably, in our cohort, although there was significant reduction in LGE at follow-up, abnormal strain persisted for the majority of patients at follow-up. """
So thank you for prompting me to delve a little more into the outcomes of the vaccine-associated myocarditis cases. I feel even more reassured than before -- the cases seem to be exceedingly rare, even in the highest risk demographic. For anyone outside that highest-risk demographic, the risk of COVID-related myocarditis is higher than vaccine-related. When this exceedingly rare complication occurs, the majority of cases result in a brief hospitalization during which they are treated with ibuprofen.
I think it will be interesting to see how the risks of having COVID a second time compare with the risks of vaccination. I think it's fully possible that the immunity from prior infection could drastically reduce the risks of disease and shift the balance, but until this is better understood, it seems that the risks of vaccination seem to be extremely low -- even lower than the risks of COVID, even for the lowest risk demographics.
> Died WITH COVID, not OF COVID. Let's be clear about what they are counting.
I am an emergency physician in an area extremely hard-hit by COVID. I'm fully aware of what "they" are counting, and certainly tired of these kinds of bad-faith speculations by un- and misinformed onlookers.
> More kids have died in the same period from drowning in America.
Absolutely -- and every one of those is also a largely preventable tragedy.
I am an emergency physician in an area extremely hard-hit by COVID. I'm fully aware of what "they" are counting, and certainly tired of these kinds of bad-faith speculations by un- and misinformed onlookers.
> More kids have died in the same period from drowning in America.
Absolutely -- and every one of those is also a largely preventable tragedy.
I fail to see how you could use your argument to vaccinate the ~75% who already have natural immunity.
And even for the rest, becoming a severe covid case isnt a lottery. Risk groups are a very real thing.
And even for the rest, becoming a severe covid case isnt a lottery. Risk groups are a very real thing.
> We don't even run efficacy trials for those every year for different strain compositions.
Now I'm curious. What is the reasoning behind pediatric flu shots? Is it dangerous to the child?
Now I'm curious. What is the reasoning behind pediatric flu shots? Is it dangerous to the child?
Might be dangerous, might not be. It changes with the antigen and if the vaccine is adjuvented (not a real word, but if it has an adjuvent in it, mostly done in a pandemic situation like 2009). The dose probably matters too, but I don't know much about that. Flu vaccines in the past have caused GBS, etc. permanent narcolepsy (no one uses that one anymore, but there might be something else that has the same issue). The whole thing is a fuzzy statistical risk calculation, so what's the risk of getting vaccinated vs the risk of not getting vaccinated. Nasal mist flu vaccines could be better for children, because it produces a better T-cell response and LAIV4 at least has no adjuvents.
I guess that wasn't clear but I meant to ask if the flu was dangerous for children.
That information is readily available from reliable sources:
Children younger than 5 years old–especially those younger than 2– are at higher risk of developing serious flu-related complications. A flu vaccine offers the best defense against flu and its potentially serious consequences and also can reduce the spread of flu to others. Getting vaccinated against flu has been shown to reduce flu illnesses, doctor’s visits, missed work and school days, and reduce the risk of flu-related hospitalization and death in children.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/children.htm
Children younger than 5 years old–especially those younger than 2– are at higher risk of developing serious flu-related complications. A flu vaccine offers the best defense against flu and its potentially serious consequences and also can reduce the spread of flu to others. Getting vaccinated against flu has been shown to reduce flu illnesses, doctor’s visits, missed work and school days, and reduce the risk of flu-related hospitalization and death in children.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/children.htm
> "That particular FDA doctor was referring to two recent developments inside the agency. First, how, with no solid clinical data, the agency authorized Covid vaccines for infants and toddlers, including those who already had Covid. And second, the fact that just months before, the FDA bypassed their external experts to authorize booster shots for young children."
> "Why are they embarrassed? In short, bad science.
The longer answer: that the heads of their agencies are using weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions. That such decisions are being driven by what’s politically palatable to people in Washington or to the Biden administration. And that they have a myopic focus on one virus instead of overall health."
So can we finally stop blaming the general public for the ongoing narrative that simply doesn't pass the smell test?
Meanwhile, in Brazil, two doctors are trying to invent their own mRNA vax. And if they do they're promising to give it away...because The First World Healthcare Industrial Complex is more concerned about money over saving lives? And the media and political powers are silent?
Too much of the past couple+ years has been a shit show. If it's not negligence then it's intentional. Neither is good.
> "Why are they embarrassed? In short, bad science.
The longer answer: that the heads of their agencies are using weak or flawed data to make critically important public health decisions. That such decisions are being driven by what’s politically palatable to people in Washington or to the Biden administration. And that they have a myopic focus on one virus instead of overall health."
So can we finally stop blaming the general public for the ongoing narrative that simply doesn't pass the smell test?
Meanwhile, in Brazil, two doctors are trying to invent their own mRNA vax. And if they do they're promising to give it away...because The First World Healthcare Industrial Complex is more concerned about money over saving lives? And the media and political powers are silent?
Too much of the past couple+ years has been a shit show. If it's not negligence then it's intentional. Neither is good.
The sources this article cites regarding masking is a single pre-print that hasn't been peer reviewed yet, and it cites no sources at all for the claim that
| "Then they ignored natural immunity. Wrong again. The vast majority of children have already had Covid, but this has made no difference in the blanket mandates for childhood vaccines. And now, by mandating vaccines and boosters for young healthy people, with no strong supporting data, these agencies are only further eroding public trust."
| "Then they ignored natural immunity. Wrong again. The vast majority of children have already had Covid, but this has made no difference in the blanket mandates for childhood vaccines. And now, by mandating vaccines and boosters for young healthy people, with no strong supporting data, these agencies are only further eroding public trust."
Do you have any sources that cloth masking (the types of masks worn by the vast majority of school children) works to reduce the spread?
They don’t because there isn’t. It’s just idiotic medical security theater. Unless the right masks are worn correctly 100% of the time, which lets be honest is not happening. I guess this is how superstitions start in a sense…
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/mandatory-mask...
“In the current study, most COVID-19 cases among students and staff were acquired from the community and approximately 10% of cases were acquired within school. The researchers found that for every 100 community-acquired cases, school districts with mandatory masking had approximately 7.3 cases of in-school infections, while optionally masked districts had 26.4 cases of in-school infections. In other words, school districts with optional masking had approximately 3.6 times the rate of in-school COVID-19 cases when compared to schools with mandatory masking. These data also show that mandatory masking was associated with a 72% reduction of in-school COVID-19 cases, compared to districts with optional masking.”
From Pediatrics:
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/149/6/e20220...
“In the current study, most COVID-19 cases among students and staff were acquired from the community and approximately 10% of cases were acquired within school. The researchers found that for every 100 community-acquired cases, school districts with mandatory masking had approximately 7.3 cases of in-school infections, while optionally masked districts had 26.4 cases of in-school infections. In other words, school districts with optional masking had approximately 3.6 times the rate of in-school COVID-19 cases when compared to schools with mandatory masking. These data also show that mandatory masking was associated with a 72% reduction of in-school COVID-19 cases, compared to districts with optional masking.”
From Pediatrics:
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/149/6/e20220...
Who cares about in-school infections when community spread is 10x higher? What was the total spread in mandated vs freed districts? Was it significantly different?
Well… me for one? We were limiting the Covid exposure of my daughter’s grandparents as much as possible and the school’s masking policy helped limit that exposure vector. And another, the teachers and staff, who we care about greatly.
I don’t know that masking in schools was the best idea. In my limited purview I think it was a good idea in our child’s school, because things seemed to go well overall. I was responding to the GP who appears to think it’s idiocy to even countenance the idea because there are no studies, when there are, and that it’s so wrong that it’s a form of superstition.
I don’t know that masking in schools was the best idea. In my limited purview I think it was a good idea in our child’s school, because things seemed to go well overall. I was responding to the GP who appears to think it’s idiocy to even countenance the idea because there are no studies, when there are, and that it’s so wrong that it’s a form of superstition.
> Unless the right masks are worn correctly 100% of the time, which lets be honest is not happening.
That argument doesn't make any sense. Why would masks have to be worn correctly 100% of the time, otherwise it's theater?
If a type of mask works well at 100% use, it probably also works pretty well at 85% use.
That argument doesn't make any sense. Why would masks have to be worn correctly 100% of the time, otherwise it's theater?
If a type of mask works well at 100% use, it probably also works pretty well at 85% use.
Well if it’s not 100% we should carefully balance the actual benefits it provides vs the freedoms we are asking people to give up and the associated inconveniences.
And before you tell me “oh it’s just a minor inconvenience”, no it’s not. It may be for you, but I hate that I have to breathe my stale exhalation, hate that I can’t hear people wearing masks clearly, hate that I can’t see peoples facial expressions when they speak, hate that I get out of breath wearing them. Added to this sometimes is a self-righteous attitude from some mask wearers who can’t tell a virus from a bacteria. These are the questions that should be asked and answered, but asking such questions suddenly labels you as an anti-science moron which is very ironic.
Edit: oh and forgot to mention that I hate how much masks (reusable cloth masks are a placebo) add to an already horrible trash situation. Funny no one cares much about this.
And before you tell me “oh it’s just a minor inconvenience”, no it’s not. It may be for you, but I hate that I have to breathe my stale exhalation, hate that I can’t hear people wearing masks clearly, hate that I can’t see peoples facial expressions when they speak, hate that I get out of breath wearing them. Added to this sometimes is a self-righteous attitude from some mask wearers who can’t tell a virus from a bacteria. These are the questions that should be asked and answered, but asking such questions suddenly labels you as an anti-science moron which is very ironic.
Edit: oh and forgot to mention that I hate how much masks (reusable cloth masks are a placebo) add to an already horrible trash situation. Funny no one cares much about this.
> Well if it’s not 100% we should carefully balance the actual benefits it provides vs the freedoms we are asking people to give up and the associated inconveniences.
...sure? We should balance that no matter what the effectiveness is.
...sure? We should balance that no matter what the effectiveness is.
Great, glad we agree. Do you see that happening right now?
I haven't been looking all that closely at how well we're balancing things, so I couldn't really say.
I just wanted to address the 100% thing. So have a nice day, I guess.
I just wanted to address the 100% thing. So have a nice day, I guess.
agreed, the arbitrary requirement of 100% effectivensss seems like the nirvana fallacy to me
Actually there have been a ton of studies of all kinds. It would take weeks to do a proper review of the literature.
One of the best-known mask studies is the Bangladesh mask study, which is as close as exists for a masking efficacy RCT.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069
First, note that this wasn't studying in the context of a mask mandate - in the sample villages, masks were distributed, and people were recommended to wear masks when around others. In practice, this brought mask usage up to 42% on average, as compared to 13% in control villages. So, even in this context where the majority of people weren't wearing masks, they still saw an effect in the cloth mask villages. They also saw a larger effect in the surgical mask villages.
Thread from one of the study authors: https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1433036923610742789
It is worth noting that the effect was smaller and the sample size for cloth mask villages smaller than for surgical mask villages, so the confidence is lower than for surgical masks. But with that said, note this from the study author:
> We find a clear and large statistically significant impact on COVID symptoms. We find an imprecise zero for serologically confirmed COVID. The most likely interpretation is that cloth masks reduce COVID, but not as much as surgical masks.
https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1433227618497728514
Now, was the effect relatively small for cloth masks? Yes. But given the results here, plus results we have from mechanistic studies of cloth masks, a reasonable conclusion is something along the lines of: cloth masks have some effect on transmission, albeit a relatively small effect. Other types of masks are better.
Additionally, if the assumption of "the types of masks worn by the vast majority of school children" is correct, then studies showing that mask mandates in schools had an effect on transmission would suggest some efficacy for cloth masks.
Two relatively large-scale observational studies: https://twitter.com/roby_bhatt/status/1502244997764157442
That said, I'm endlessly disappointed that there wasn't a consistent, strong push for people to upgrade from cloth to surgical once supplies of surgical masks were no longer an issue. And mask sizing was also an issue - there are so many masks out there that are oversized for kids. Imagine if the federal government had coordinated with schools across the country to ensure supplies of kid sized surgical masks at every school. Alas.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069
First, note that this wasn't studying in the context of a mask mandate - in the sample villages, masks were distributed, and people were recommended to wear masks when around others. In practice, this brought mask usage up to 42% on average, as compared to 13% in control villages. So, even in this context where the majority of people weren't wearing masks, they still saw an effect in the cloth mask villages. They also saw a larger effect in the surgical mask villages.
Thread from one of the study authors: https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1433036923610742789
It is worth noting that the effect was smaller and the sample size for cloth mask villages smaller than for surgical mask villages, so the confidence is lower than for surgical masks. But with that said, note this from the study author:
> We find a clear and large statistically significant impact on COVID symptoms. We find an imprecise zero for serologically confirmed COVID. The most likely interpretation is that cloth masks reduce COVID, but not as much as surgical masks.
https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1433227618497728514
Now, was the effect relatively small for cloth masks? Yes. But given the results here, plus results we have from mechanistic studies of cloth masks, a reasonable conclusion is something along the lines of: cloth masks have some effect on transmission, albeit a relatively small effect. Other types of masks are better.
Additionally, if the assumption of "the types of masks worn by the vast majority of school children" is correct, then studies showing that mask mandates in schools had an effect on transmission would suggest some efficacy for cloth masks.
Two relatively large-scale observational studies: https://twitter.com/roby_bhatt/status/1502244997764157442
That said, I'm endlessly disappointed that there wasn't a consistent, strong push for people to upgrade from cloth to surgical once supplies of surgical masks were no longer an issue. And mask sizing was also an issue - there are so many masks out there that are oversized for kids. Imagine if the federal government had coordinated with schools across the country to ensure supplies of kid sized surgical masks at every school. Alas.
The main problem here is that Public health agencies are refusing to admit they are / were wrong in certain cases causing all political non sense.
The second problem is that public healt official ended relying too much on mandates/enforcements and way too little on propaganda.
For example, it is obvious now that vaccines do not prevent one from getting COVID and spreading COVID. Yes - vaccines definitely make having COVID like a mild fly: I got it just now and I was just a little sick for a couple of days.
But they still claim that vaccines are preventing the spread.
And then the approach is really bad: instead of running “viagra style” commercials on TV for vaccinations they decided to go with heavy handed mandates and requirements. I bet a couple of Steph Curry and Tom Brady commercials about vaccination will do wonder.
For example, it is obvious now that vaccines do not prevent one from getting COVID and spreading COVID. Yes - vaccines definitely make having COVID like a mild fly: I got it just now and I was just a little sick for a couple of days.
But they still claim that vaccines are preventing the spread.
And then the approach is really bad: instead of running “viagra style” commercials on TV for vaccinations they decided to go with heavy handed mandates and requirements. I bet a couple of Steph Curry and Tom Brady commercials about vaccination will do wonder.
My person, Donald Trump was getting booed for telling people at his rallys to get the vaccine, and you think having a superstar in the least-liked sports league amongst Republicans tell them to get shots would work better than a mandate?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-booed-al...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/politics/donald-trump-booster...
https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-booed-al...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/politics/donald-trump-booster...
https://thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture...
Yes - it will help. At least it will not hurt CDC as much as mandates.
It seems strange that CDC had policy “if somebody does not want vaccine we should force them instead convince them”. So strange that many people started being suspicious.
Meaning we did not have any - zero - nada - none - commericals on TV for vaccinations. And many many crypto ones.
Meaning we did not have any - zero - nada - none - commericals on TV for vaccinations. And many many crypto ones.
> we did not have any - zero - nada - none - commericals on TV for vaccinations.
That's sad your country didn't see the need to advertise. In the US we had tons of them.
That's sad your country didn't see the need to advertise. In the US we had tons of them.
Here's a study showing vaccine effectiveness against infection in the range of >90% initially, waning to 60-80% after 4 months.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/28/5/22-0141_article
The fact that vaccines make you less likely to become infected in the first place and also they make the disease shorter means that vaccines also reduce transmission.
The fact that vaccines make you less likely to become infected in the first place and also they make the disease shorter means that vaccines also reduce transmission.
Here's a study showing that the duration of Omicron BA.1 infection (time from PCR+ to PCR-) is actually longer for vaccinated persons than for the unvaccinated. The time for PCR+ to a negative culture is actually longer for boosted subjects than for unvaccinated.
"Duration of Shedding of Culturable Virus in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) Infection" (see "Figure 1. Viral Decay and Time to Negative Viral Culture."): https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2202092
"Duration of Shedding of Culturable Virus in SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (BA.1) Infection" (see "Figure 1. Viral Decay and Time to Negative Viral Culture."): https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2202092
That is not what that (very small) study showed. It was comparing Delta vs Omicron, not vaccinated vs not.
"There were no appreciable between-group differences in the time to PCR conversion or culture conversion according to vaccination status"
"There were no appreciable between-group differences in the time to PCR conversion or culture conversion according to vaccination status"
I chose my words with care.
The figure (specifically Fig1D and Fig1E of https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/jour...) speaks for itself.
I would rather the authors soft-pedal the alarming results and get published than not get published at all. Just as I approve of POWs appearing to collaborate by sitting for media interviews that may, on the surface, make their captors seem humane and then blinking "T-O-R-T-U-R-E" in Morse code.
Ignoring the charts and clutching at that line of text still requires one to accept that vaccinated and boosted persons didn't clear covid any faster than unvaccinated persons, which completely contradicts the vaccine-pushers' dogma that the adverse effects and deaths occurring in younger demographics (especially but not solely among younger males) post-vax are worth it, on balance, because the shots reduce spread to and hence deaths among more vulnerable groups.
The figure (specifically Fig1D and Fig1E of https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/jour...) speaks for itself.
I would rather the authors soft-pedal the alarming results and get published than not get published at all. Just as I approve of POWs appearing to collaborate by sitting for media interviews that may, on the surface, make their captors seem humane and then blinking "T-O-R-T-U-R-E" in Morse code.
Ignoring the charts and clutching at that line of text still requires one to accept that vaccinated and boosted persons didn't clear covid any faster than unvaccinated persons, which completely contradicts the vaccine-pushers' dogma that the adverse effects and deaths occurring in younger demographics (especially but not solely among younger males) post-vax are worth it, on balance, because the shots reduce spread to and hence deaths among more vulnerable groups.
Ok got it. You conducted your own study that contradicts the authors by reading their minds and combining that with your unrelated conspiracy theories.
Again, the authors state they found no evidence that vaccinated and boosted individuals were faster to clear covid (either according to PCR testing or culture [replication-competent viruses]) than unvaccinated.
This directly contradicts much of the dishonest, unethical messaging urging young and healthy individuals to submit to experimental shots, which sold it to us on the basis that we would be shielding higher-risk persons, depriving those who were not at high risk yet chanced the shots for altruistic reasons of genuine informed consent.
The clearing rates indicated in the embedded figure match what I'm seeing in my own community and I'm afraid your cognitive dissonance is bound to increase as time goes on and you find you're inhabiting what you claim to view as a conspiracy theory.
Time will tell.
This directly contradicts much of the dishonest, unethical messaging urging young and healthy individuals to submit to experimental shots, which sold it to us on the basis that we would be shielding higher-risk persons, depriving those who were not at high risk yet chanced the shots for altruistic reasons of genuine informed consent.
The clearing rates indicated in the embedded figure match what I'm seeing in my own community and I'm afraid your cognitive dissonance is bound to increase as time goes on and you find you're inhabiting what you claim to view as a conspiracy theory.
Time will tell.
And they will never publicly (on TV, PBS, etc.) say that. Never - since initially they say it will STOP transmission (not reduce).
Sure they will say “we never said it will stop transmission” but it was never clearly worded as that. Of course, since they wanted mandates.
Sure they will say “we never said it will stop transmission” but it was never clearly worded as that. Of course, since they wanted mandates.
> And they will never publicly (on TV, PBS, etc.) say that. Never - since initially they say it will STOP transmission (not reduce).
care to provide evidence of significant figures saying this?
care to provide evidence of significant figures saying this?
You've either misunderstood, not paid attention, or are misremembering what was said about vaccines. /biochemist
encryptluks2(1)
The one thing that struck me about Covid and the response was the western world rock bottom levels of trust in their governments (broadly defined).
To me that's the real story - the demonstration of what amounts to a loss of legitimacy.
(FWIW shutdowns did not bother me much, I got the two mandatory vaccines my jurisdiction required for air travel but refused the boosters, I generally wear masks in public because better safe than sorry.)
To me that's the real story - the demonstration of what amounts to a loss of legitimacy.
(FWIW shutdowns did not bother me much, I got the two mandatory vaccines my jurisdiction required for air travel but refused the boosters, I generally wear masks in public because better safe than sorry.)
I think it boils down to a vicious cycle. Institutions are worried about a loss of credibility and are as a result very unwilling to acknowledge where they have been wrong, changed their minds or about any uncertainties that still exist. As a result people get the wrong impression and highly overestimate the competence of those institutions, and the confidence that their solutions warrant. Which makes those institutions even more afraid of loosing credibility. Which lead to some very comical parallel realities, like the WHO not aknowleding that COVID was airborne till 2022
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30939200
Or differently put, if you have absolutely unrealistic expectations and deferred any critical thinking to another party, you are putting said party in a very very difficult situation. And if they not just lack the backbone to tell you this, but start pretending to be that competent and certain to match your expectations, it can become very dangerous.
Or differently put, if you have absolutely unrealistic expectations and deferred any critical thinking to another party, you are putting said party in a very very difficult situation. And if they not just lack the backbone to tell you this, but start pretending to be that competent and certain to match your expectations, it can become very dangerous.
I'm not really saying COVID caused it. I'm saying in early 2020 institutional trust was already so slow that every newspaper and government department on earth could have said "the sky is blue" and a lot of people would have said "fuck you no it's not" by default.
I think OP missed the fact that clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines in children measured neutralizing antibodies as the surrogate endpoint, similar to clinical trials for other vaccines [1]. So it is not surprising that the trials could achieve their primary endpoint while being inconclusive on preventing infection. On top of that, the benefit of vaccination can arise not just from preventing infection but also from reducing disease severity.
[1]: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/table-surrog... "Table of Surrogate Endpoints That Were the Basis of Drug Approval or Licensure"
[1]: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/table-surrog... "Table of Surrogate Endpoints That Were the Basis of Drug Approval or Licensure"
I don’t really have a problem with making boosters available.
Closing schools and masks have been gone in my area has been over for a while so the article seems to be mixing timelines in a way that is hard to follow.
Closing schools and masks have been gone in my area has been over for a while so the article seems to be mixing timelines in a way that is hard to follow.
Yes, like the people wearing double-masks outside walking their dogs still (Seattle). The CDC _never_ said wearing a mask outside is useful, and never said that people are catching it outdoors. So I don't know where the "idea" came that wearing a mask outside is "better" than not. It's just probably paranoia at this point (and looking like a "good person") and has nothing to do with infection control.
One of the authors tweeted this:
"The rest of the world has accepted the endemic nature of Covid and moved on, but the U.S. is an int'l outlier, still pushing mass testing & chasing down every case." [0]
I'm not sure what inverse universe he lives in given that we barely do any official testing, and contact tracing never even got off the ground.
His retweets are also all the other well known covid-minimizers - including the infamous Jay Bhattacharya.
[0] https://twitter.com/MartyMakary/status/1546533258187390977
"The rest of the world has accepted the endemic nature of Covid and moved on, but the U.S. is an int'l outlier, still pushing mass testing & chasing down every case." [0]
I'm not sure what inverse universe he lives in given that we barely do any official testing, and contact tracing never even got off the ground.
His retweets are also all the other well known covid-minimizers - including the infamous Jay Bhattacharya.
[0] https://twitter.com/MartyMakary/status/1546533258187390977
Shit, most cities in the US stopped seriously doing comprehensive contact tracing around the time NY threw in the towel, back in late Spring or early Summer 2020 IIRC. Yes, within months of it reaching our shores.
"Pushing mass testing" LOL in what universe? I guess they shipped out a second wave of those mediocre home tests recently but not that many of them and only if you asked. Otherwise you just go get tested at a doctor's office or urgent care if you start to feel terrible, if you want to, just like with the flu, so you know exactly how careful you and others in your household need to be about hanging out around old folks. In fact, one of the ones we recently did was a combo test for both Covid and flu.
Anything beyond that's coming from employers, not the government, and most of them aren't doing much anymore and haven't been for a while.
"Pushing mass testing" LOL in what universe? I guess they shipped out a second wave of those mediocre home tests recently but not that many of them and only if you asked. Otherwise you just go get tested at a doctor's office or urgent care if you start to feel terrible, if you want to, just like with the flu, so you know exactly how careful you and others in your household need to be about hanging out around old folks. In fact, one of the ones we recently did was a combo test for both Covid and flu.
Anything beyond that's coming from employers, not the government, and most of them aren't doing much anymore and haven't been for a while.
I guess this is anecdotal, but counterexample. I had COVID twice. The first time there was extensive contact tracing performed by the county. The second time, there was basically nothing. Contact tracing in my area stopped when Omicron took over.
Both you and the commenter you're responding to are making the point that contact tracing now seems not to be actively pursued. Both accounts contradict the article. To that extent, you seem to be in agreement.
A kid in my 3yo son's preschool class tested positive today, and they are asking that all kids test twice (with a few days in between) and wear masks at all times while at school for the next 6 days. I'm in SF
My intuition is that people underestimate the impact of forcing kids and toddlers to wear masks.
What I observe is that for folks without kids, life has gotten back to normal, but somehow everything related to kids is still over cautious.
My intuition is that people underestimate the impact of forcing kids and toddlers to wear masks.
What I observe is that for folks without kids, life has gotten back to normal, but somehow everything related to kids is still over cautious.
All the state have moved on but the Federal government guidance is still stuck in the past.
What is the federal government enforcing? Don't even need to be tested before flying into the US anymore.
The post you’re replying to says “guidance”, not regulations or enforcement.
But guidance is an incredibly weak standard. The CDC for example recommend you only eat steaks cooked to a temperature that works out to medium done or higher. I suspect I'm not even sure the guidance on the state level is actually different. I suspect just less reported on
That’s exactly the critique. The CDC makes blanket recommendations that aren’t based in science and assume you dear citizen are incapable of grappling with nuanced advice.
If there are covid minimizers, are there covid maximizers?
I know a guy who hasn't gone inside of a restaurant in the last two and a half years. I'm literally laying in bed sick with covid and my mouth tastes like the anti-nailbiting bittering nail polish because of the Paxlovid right now, and I still think that's too cautious.
Oh yes, very loud ones too who have magically obtained PhDs in biology, virology and immunology all in the past 2 years. It’s amazing!
100% yes.
Yeah, it's also a fabrication, unless "by the world" he means to exclude China.
Taiwan would like a word.
Other countries with excellent control: New Zealand, Iceland, Taiwan, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
Other countries with excellent control: New Zealand, Iceland, Taiwan, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
And Japan
And large parts of Europe, at least judging by the travel restrictions on their websites.
Not sure about entry restrictions but there aren't any serious "behavioral" restrictions in Europe at the moment, despite most countries being through a BA.5 wave. Vaccine, testing and mask mandates have mostly been lifted.
Here in Italy there's still a mask mandate on public transport, which is not uniformly enforced even, but that's it.
Here in Italy there's still a mask mandate on public transport, which is not uniformly enforced even, but that's it.
Which parts are those exactly? Even the strictest countries like Germany no longer have any entry restrictions.
New Zealand as well for the list. I think we can be fairly certain the author is full of shit
Despite this tech companies are still requiring vaccines to come work in person, yet are wondering why no one wants to go back...
Testing is way safer at this point than two doses against a strain that hasn't been dominant since late 2020. Lots of people are getting sick anyways even if they are vaccinated from other strains they aren't protected against, yet we discriminate against anyone who decided not to get the shot for religious reasons, or who can't get it for medical reasons.
The world will look back on these years as collective insanity.
Testing is way safer at this point than two doses against a strain that hasn't been dominant since late 2020. Lots of people are getting sick anyways even if they are vaccinated from other strains they aren't protected against, yet we discriminate against anyone who decided not to get the shot for religious reasons, or who can't get it for medical reasons.
The world will look back on these years as collective insanity.
> Despite this tech companies are still requiring vaccines to come work in person, yet are wondering why no one wants to go back...
What?! No one wants to go back to the office because it fucking sucks to commute, not because of vaccine mandates. I would even like to see evidence that many tech companies have strict mandates or are enforcing them; worst I’ve heard is that non vaccinated staff have to test weekly at Stanford. Most companies will probably be less strict than there.
What?! No one wants to go back to the office because it fucking sucks to commute, not because of vaccine mandates. I would even like to see evidence that many tech companies have strict mandates or are enforcing them; worst I’ve heard is that non vaccinated staff have to test weekly at Stanford. Most companies will probably be less strict than there.
> The world will look back on these years as collective insanity.
I'm a biochemist, and I can assure you that scientists have been dismayed at the collective insanity since around March 2020, but we're definitely not dismayed at the same things as you are.
I'm a biochemist, and I can assure you that scientists have been dismayed at the collective insanity since around March 2020, but we're definitely not dismayed at the same things as you are.
I had a sign at my university entrance asking a vaccine status or current test as a "negative proof for covid19". As in your vaccine status proofs you dont have covid19.
Any scientist who isnt deeply ashamed of this should really get the money for their degree back.
Pretending that vaccines are in any way safer then or as safe as actual tests is simply horrific.
Any scientist who isnt deeply ashamed of this should really get the money for their degree back.
Pretending that vaccines are in any way safer then or as safe as actual tests is simply horrific.
The word “proof” in that context just doesn’t mean what you think it means. It’s an administrative context, not a scientific context. It’s not that hard to understand.
Apparently i am a bit slow. Please do elaborate, i am really curious how your vaccine status can be used to verify that there is no indication for a covid infection.
It has nothing to do with biology. The word “proof” in this context just refers to the administrative document required to access the service or location you want to access. It’s purely an administrative construct, and it has nothing to do with “proving”, logically or scientifically speaking, that you are not infected.
It is quite the brain acrobatics to focus on it not being a test, duh, but a document. The point is what this document is supposed to document. And that is there being no indication, that you are infected with COVID.
The term is actually well defined, especially what is supposed to be documented by it. I am German and they borrowed it straight from the government regulation. The "Negativnachweis" https://www.rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de/bshe/document/jlr-Coron...
>(1) Soweit nach dieser Verordnung der Nachweis zu führen ist, dass keine Anhaltspunkte für eine Infektion mit dem SARS-CoV-2-Virus vorliegen (Negativnachweis), kann dies erfolgen durch
>(1) >If, according to this regulation, proof must be provide that there are no indications of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus (negative proof), this can be done by...
And you being vaccinated with a leaky vaccine doesnt mean there is no indication you are infected. Not in any way. This is misinformation that actually kills, because it allows COVID to spread. And its not information spread by some morons who drink bleach but by the government and quite literally taped to the doors of the figurative house of science. Because people lack the integrity to call out bullshit for what it is.
The term is actually well defined, especially what is supposed to be documented by it. I am German and they borrowed it straight from the government regulation. The "Negativnachweis" https://www.rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de/bshe/document/jlr-Coron...
>(1) Soweit nach dieser Verordnung der Nachweis zu führen ist, dass keine Anhaltspunkte für eine Infektion mit dem SARS-CoV-2-Virus vorliegen (Negativnachweis), kann dies erfolgen durch
>(1) >If, according to this regulation, proof must be provide that there are no indications of infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus (negative proof), this can be done by...
And you being vaccinated with a leaky vaccine doesnt mean there is no indication you are infected. Not in any way. This is misinformation that actually kills, because it allows COVID to spread. And its not information spread by some morons who drink bleach but by the government and quite literally taped to the doors of the figurative house of science. Because people lack the integrity to call out bullshit for what it is.
This is the last time I’ll entertain you on this line of comment:
the gold standard test to see if someone is infected with sars-cov-2 would involve doing sequencing of a sample from the airways and potentially also stools. A PCR test is close enough, for the sake of argument.
Good luck trying to do these tests every time you want to allow someone in a building. The task is to find another requirement that is of practical value: go.
the gold standard test to see if someone is infected with sars-cov-2 would involve doing sequencing of a sample from the airways and potentially also stools. A PCR test is close enough, for the sake of argument.
Good luck trying to do these tests every time you want to allow someone in a building. The task is to find another requirement that is of practical value: go.
I am hard pressed to assume that you are unaware that the tests we are talking about here are lateral flow tests. And while their accuracy is a lot worse then PCR tests, it is still a far far better indicator for whether you are infected then your vaccine status. Just compare the lateral flow test accuracy with the vaccine efficiency at preventing infecting others.
It is really quite simple. Nobody with any knowledge on the topic can in good conscience say that you can use the fact that you are vaccinated with a leaky vaccine as an indicator for not being infected. That is quite simply not how the COVID vaccines work. This is extremly dangerous misinformation. And due to the fact who spreads it, a lot more dangerous then any boogeymen of idiots drinking bleach. Focusing on those caricatures and ignoring misinformation spread by officials is utterly irresponsible and evidence for a lack of scientific integrity.
It is really quite simple. Nobody with any knowledge on the topic can in good conscience say that you can use the fact that you are vaccinated with a leaky vaccine as an indicator for not being infected. That is quite simply not how the COVID vaccines work. This is extremly dangerous misinformation. And due to the fact who spreads it, a lot more dangerous then any boogeymen of idiots drinking bleach. Focusing on those caricatures and ignoring misinformation spread by officials is utterly irresponsible and evidence for a lack of scientific integrity.
> Nobody with any knowledge on the topic
Respectfully, this is my area of expertise, and you're in the potatoes.
Respectfully, this is my area of expertise, and you're in the potatoes.
> One CDC scientist told us about her shame and frustration about what happened to American children during the pandemic: “CDC failed to balance the risks of Covid with other risks that come from closing schools,” she said. “Learning loss, mental health exacerbations were obvious early on and those worsened as the guidance insisted on keeping schools virtual. CDC guidance worsened racial equity for generations to come. It failed this generation of children.”
At my toddler preschool they still have a mask mandate, even though research shows that it hurts the kids speech development and ability to read emotions. I now need to send my child to speech therapy lessons.
There was never a discussion of the pros and cons, and it's simply a decision of the preschool management, as the county and state have dropped it a while ago. It's just an example of how the children are rarely a considiration.
There was never a discussion of the pros and cons, and it's simply a decision of the preschool management, as the county and state have dropped it a while ago. It's just an example of how the children are rarely a considiration.
> There was never a discussion of the pros and cons, and it's simply a decision of the preschool management, as the county and state have dropped it a while ago. It's just an example of how the children are rarely a considiration.
There was SO MUCH discussion of the pros and cons.
I promise. You may not have seen it, but it was in so many places.
There was SO MUCH discussion of the pros and cons.
I promise. You may not have seen it, but it was in so many places.
We closed schools to keep the bars open. I'll never quite understand it.
The worst part of the pandemic beside policies that would swing back and forth (which is kind of understandable if you're learning as you go) was the inability to have discussions about the pros and cons of shutdowns and other pandemic related policies.
Social media and mainstream media saw it fit to censor dissenting voices --not those of quacks, we can mostly all agree on minimizing the voices of quacks but shutting down medical professionals and medical academics and so on is very concerning.
The only people they allowed to be wrong about the pandemic were govt officials. They could get it wrong and right it as many times as necessary.
Social media and mainstream media saw it fit to censor dissenting voices --not those of quacks, we can mostly all agree on minimizing the voices of quacks but shutting down medical professionals and medical academics and so on is very concerning.
The only people they allowed to be wrong about the pandemic were govt officials. They could get it wrong and right it as many times as necessary.
You wouldn’t believe how bad it was on reddit. Places like r/Canada had to ban any dissenting voices because they were unable to have a discussion that didn’t go with their beliefs. If I had to wager my left nut I would wager that sub is controlled by the government to try and sway a narrative. If you have a strong argument you have no issues about debate.
this thread is a year old but two of the mods of r/canada are white supremacists
https://old.reddit.com/r/onguardforthee/comments/m4zywr/rcan...
At least with the pandemic you can pretend that lives were at stake and dissenters were a public health risk. I disagree with that argument, but I can see it.
Those same social networks are de-ranking and blocking dissenters against the escalation of war against Russia in Ukraine. This is categorically different and a major escalation in censorship that most people are not realizing. It's very scary.
Those same social networks are de-ranking and blocking dissenters against the escalation of war against Russia in Ukraine. This is categorically different and a major escalation in censorship that most people are not realizing. It's very scary.
This is categorically different and a major escalation in censorship that most people are not realizing. It's very scary.
It makes more sense now that several USA politicians have had "unscripted" moments in which they admitted that we are at war with Russia. [0][1] It will make even more sense when someone admits we have had "special forces" killing civilians in Donbas for years. As in, if we're at war, even if we don't dare declare it and even if most Americans would vote against it despite constant corporate media gaslighting, it is in some sense "disloyal" for pacifists to complain about war.
The censorship made no sense in February when we all pretended that the whole thing was totally unprovoked Russian aggression and we were just sad witnesses. At that time, the censorship just proved that something stunk about the war-media story.
[0] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/04/26/ukra-a26.html
[1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/ukraine-nato-rus...
It makes more sense now that several USA politicians have had "unscripted" moments in which they admitted that we are at war with Russia. [0][1] It will make even more sense when someone admits we have had "special forces" killing civilians in Donbas for years. As in, if we're at war, even if we don't dare declare it and even if most Americans would vote against it despite constant corporate media gaslighting, it is in some sense "disloyal" for pacifists to complain about war.
The censorship made no sense in February when we all pretended that the whole thing was totally unprovoked Russian aggression and we were just sad witnesses. At that time, the censorship just proved that something stunk about the war-media story.
[0] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/04/26/ukra-a26.html
[1] https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/ukraine-nato-rus...
Of course, it was provoked. Otherwise they wouldn’t refer to it all the time as an unprovoked invasion.
~ Noam Chomsky
~ Noam Chomsky
> Those same social networks are de-ranking and blocking dissenters against the escalation of war against Russia in Ukraine.
Yea Russia shouldn't have escalated the war.
Yea Russia shouldn't have escalated the war.
Of course Russian bots should be blocked. Why would anyone else support LESS defence by Ukraine?
What a bizarre idea.
What a bizarre idea.
Well, bots should be blocked.
But I think Russian plants should be allowed to post. They're obvious, and I think they do more harm to Russia than benefit.
We're the West. We thrive on freedom that would make Russian tyrants squirm. We can handle some dissent, even as we (figuratively) tear them apart.
But I think Russian plants should be allowed to post. They're obvious, and I think they do more harm to Russia than benefit.
We're the West. We thrive on freedom that would make Russian tyrants squirm. We can handle some dissent, even as we (figuratively) tear them apart.
usrn(1)
The US got Ukraine into this war in the first place by intentionally provoking Russia into it. Obama admitted to committing the 2014 coup in Ukraine and then refused to go so far as to provide weapons because he said Russia would likely escalate. Trump gave them weapons and then Russia responded to that escalation by invading.
Even if you're okay with all of that, the US is not trying to help Ukraine win, it's trying to make the war as long and as expensive as possible for Russia. The US is sacrificing Ukrainian lives to harm Russia.
Even if you're okay with all of that, the US is not trying to help Ukraine win, it's trying to make the war as long and as expensive as possible for Russia. The US is sacrificing Ukrainian lives to harm Russia.
The one commonality I've seen across virtually all these anti-Western narratives on the Ukraine conflict is that they completely ignore the agency of Ukraine as an independent nation state.
It's never that Ukrainians took to the streets in 2014 because their government was corrupt and undemocratic (literally imprisoning the leader of the opposition party), it's that they took to the streets because the US artificially manufactured dissent.
It's never that Ukraine had an independent desire to increase defense spending after it suffered military humiliation and loss of territory in 2014, it's that the West armed Ukraine to agitate against Russia.
Anything that could be interpreted either as an independent action by Ukraine or a Western intervention is automatically labeled as the latter without any explanation as to why.
The irony, of course, is that the only three things in this story that are unambiguously interventionist are Russia's 2014 invasion, the 'proxy' war between 2014 and 2022, and the 2022 invasion. There is simply no other way to slice it - Ukraine didn't invite foreign troops in to come and start shelling things. That is the elephant in the room that is never brought up in these narratives.
It's never that Ukrainians took to the streets in 2014 because their government was corrupt and undemocratic (literally imprisoning the leader of the opposition party), it's that they took to the streets because the US artificially manufactured dissent.
It's never that Ukraine had an independent desire to increase defense spending after it suffered military humiliation and loss of territory in 2014, it's that the West armed Ukraine to agitate against Russia.
Anything that could be interpreted either as an independent action by Ukraine or a Western intervention is automatically labeled as the latter without any explanation as to why.
The irony, of course, is that the only three things in this story that are unambiguously interventionist are Russia's 2014 invasion, the 'proxy' war between 2014 and 2022, and the 2022 invasion. There is simply no other way to slice it - Ukraine didn't invite foreign troops in to come and start shelling things. That is the elephant in the room that is never brought up in these narratives.
Actually excellent observation (ignoring agency of Ukraine as an independent nation state). First time that I see it in on English speaking forums.
It's common russian rhetoric those days: they flat out deny that Ukraine is an independent state. It comes in a few variants
- After 2014 Ukraine doesn't have legitimate government therefor they are not a state
- Ukraine was never a state, it's just mistake
- Ukraine is just a project of communist party after 1917 revolution and it failed
- Ukraine is managed by USA/Anglo-Saxons/Collective West, hence it's not a real state
- Mix of above
It's also rather common instead of writing Ukraine to write 404
It's common russian rhetoric those days: they flat out deny that Ukraine is an independent state. It comes in a few variants
- After 2014 Ukraine doesn't have legitimate government therefor they are not a state
- Ukraine was never a state, it's just mistake
- Ukraine is just a project of communist party after 1917 revolution and it failed
- Ukraine is managed by USA/Anglo-Saxons/Collective West, hence it's not a real state
- Mix of above
It's also rather common instead of writing Ukraine to write 404
Ukraine was never an independent state. First it was a Russian puppet. Then the US couped it and it became a US puppet. When the US topples your government, installs their hand picked leader, and then arms and trains your military, you don't really get to say you are a sovereign nation just because you may have had another election or two since then.
I find the bigger problem is people can't understand that often there's just bad guys vs bad guys. Sure, Putin is an evil, murderous dictator who belongs in prison for the rest of his life.
Now, what should happen to Obama for committing the coup in Ukraine? He bragged about negotiating the coup before the previous leaders had to flee and the Assistant Secretary of State and Ukrainian ambassador were caught on tape talking about "midwifing this thing in" and making sure their hand-selected candidate became the leader.
I find there's nothing bad enough I can say about Putin that allows anyone to even consider any nuance.
Now, what should happen to Obama for committing the coup in Ukraine? He bragged about negotiating the coup before the previous leaders had to flee and the Assistant Secretary of State and Ukrainian ambassador were caught on tape talking about "midwifing this thing in" and making sure their hand-selected candidate became the leader.
I find there's nothing bad enough I can say about Putin that allows anyone to even consider any nuance.
Sometimes it is just bad guys versus bad guys. I don't think that's the case here, but let's humor that argument. Good and bad isn't a simple binary - it's a scale. And I have yet to see an anti-Western narrative on the Ukraine war that doesn't use vastly different yardsticks of what is acceptable behavior for the West versus Russia.
That's a silly thing to say to someone who literally just said Putin is an evil, murderous dictator who deserves to be in prison for the rest of his life. Is there any level of condemnation I could give him that would allow you to have a discussion about the US role in this situation?
I don't think you understood my comment. It's not about how evil you or I think Putin is. It's about drawing false equivalencies.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Euromaidan was 100% manufactured by Obama. (I strongly disagree, but I'll give you that one for now.) A couple of hundred people died in the protests and riots. So far, by the Kremlin's own account, 100x to 200x that number have died in the 2022 invasion. Millions have been displaced. Entire towns and villages have been reduced to rubble. People are dying in Sri Lanka from famines because of the lack of Ukranian grain. How are you going to look anyone straight in the face and them that these evils are comparable?
This is what I mean when I say that every anti-Western narrative I've seen on this war uses different yardsticks for Russia and the West. Putin murdered 100 people? Well Obama killed 1 so it's really not that different is it? It's like asking a judge to give a thief who pocketed a candybar and a thief who robbed into a bank at gunpoint equal sentences because "both of them are thieves." I'd prefer not to have a thief as a roommate, but if my choices were a candybar thief or a bank robber, I know who I'd choose. You don't need a PhD in philosophy to understand this concept.
I'm am not sure if you are to arguing in bad faith or if you are sincere, but the drawing of false equivalencies is a favorite tool of those who argue in bad faith.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Euromaidan was 100% manufactured by Obama. (I strongly disagree, but I'll give you that one for now.) A couple of hundred people died in the protests and riots. So far, by the Kremlin's own account, 100x to 200x that number have died in the 2022 invasion. Millions have been displaced. Entire towns and villages have been reduced to rubble. People are dying in Sri Lanka from famines because of the lack of Ukranian grain. How are you going to look anyone straight in the face and them that these evils are comparable?
This is what I mean when I say that every anti-Western narrative I've seen on this war uses different yardsticks for Russia and the West. Putin murdered 100 people? Well Obama killed 1 so it's really not that different is it? It's like asking a judge to give a thief who pocketed a candybar and a thief who robbed into a bank at gunpoint equal sentences because "both of them are thieves." I'd prefer not to have a thief as a roommate, but if my choices were a candybar thief or a bank robber, I know who I'd choose. You don't need a PhD in philosophy to understand this concept.
I'm am not sure if you are to arguing in bad faith or if you are sincere, but the drawing of false equivalencies is a favorite tool of those who argue in bad faith.
What do you think the US would do if Russia overthrew Mexico and started building up a military on our Southern border? Please refresh your memory on how close we were to total global annihilation during the Cuban missile crisis before responding.
Which country, in the last 30 years, has invaded more countries and killed more innocent people in wars of aggression? US or Russia?
Rank these world leaders in order of causing most innocent civilian deaths: Bush Jr, Obama, Trump, Biden, Putin.
Which country is providing the weapons for, providing intelligence, and coordinating strikes for Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen? US or Russia? How does the death count in Yemen compare to Ukraine?
Which country, in the last 30 years, has invaded more countries and killed more innocent people in wars of aggression? US or Russia?
Rank these world leaders in order of causing most innocent civilian deaths: Bush Jr, Obama, Trump, Biden, Putin.
Which country is providing the weapons for, providing intelligence, and coordinating strikes for Saudi Arabia's genocide in Yemen? US or Russia? How does the death count in Yemen compare to Ukraine?
Ukraine has had two elections since then, hasn't kept the people elected in 2014 (Zelensky was elected as the the pro-Russia candidate), certainly didn't like the corrupt Yanukovych who you're claiming the US couped, and the US has been giving Ukraine distance weapons like HIMARS so… no?
Though, Poroshenko (the guy who was elected in 2014 post-revolution and is some kind of chocolate factory oligarch) fled the country over a prosecution but has since come back to fight in the national guard, so it seems like even he's in favor of it.
Though, Poroshenko (the guy who was elected in 2014 post-revolution and is some kind of chocolate factory oligarch) fled the country over a prosecution but has since come back to fight in the national guard, so it seems like even he's in favor of it.
The reason Ukraine is at war with Russia is because Ukraine refused to accept Putin's puppet leader, Viktor Yanukovych.
The Ukrainians got fed up with Viktor Yanukovych and his corrupt government so they voted him out.
That annoyed Putin so he hit back with the invasion of Crimea and then he really pushed his luck with a full scale invasion of Ukraine.
The Ukrainians got fed up with Viktor Yanukovych and his corrupt government so they voted him out.
That annoyed Putin so he hit back with the invasion of Crimea and then he really pushed his luck with a full scale invasion of Ukraine.
Ukraine is at war with Russia because the US couped the Russian puppet leader, replaced him with a US puppet leader, and then trained and armed an anti-Russian military on Russia's border.
The coupe you speak of was the Ukrainian General Election. In the west that is referred to as democracy.
You do know Ukraine had a violent coup in 2014, executed by Obama, and the democratically elected pro-Russian leader had to flee for his life? This isn't a conspiracy theory, Obama bragged publicly about how he brokered the deal for the unconstitutional transfer of power to his hand picked choice.
If you didn't know, consider what that means about your news sources. Even if it doesn't change your positions on Ukraine, the US overthrew a country and it wasn't big enough news that they made sure you knew it. It's just a random interview buried on CNN or whatever.
If you didn't know, consider what that means about your news sources. Even if it doesn't change your positions on Ukraine, the US overthrew a country and it wasn't big enough news that they made sure you knew it. It's just a random interview buried on CNN or whatever.
The event in 2014 that you refer to was the Revolution of Dignity and once again the concept of revolution goes hand in hand with the concept of democracy.
Revolutions only happen when the people of a country are so fed up with their lack of democracy they revolt.
Here's the US Army handbook on how to secretly make revolutions/coups happen, released by Wikileaks. https://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-fm3-05-130.pdf
Here's a transcript of the US Assistant Secretary of State and the US Ambassador to Ukraine planning the coup. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
Here's Obama saying he brokered the deal for the transfer of power, resulting in the democratically elected leader fleeing. https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/02/01/pres-obama-on-...
Here's a transcript of the US Assistant Secretary of State and the US Ambassador to Ukraine planning the coup. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
Here's Obama saying he brokered the deal for the transfer of power, resulting in the democratically elected leader fleeing. https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2015/02/01/pres-obama-on-...
Sorry but to me this complaint is incomprehensible. Every view imaginable about the pandemic, right and wrong, got tons of discussion and garnered millions of adherents.
> Social media and mainstream media saw it fit to censor dissenting voices --not those of quacks, we can mostly all agree on minimizing the voices of quacks but shutting down medical professionals and medical academics and so on is very concerning.
No I don't agree with censoring _any_ voices - precisely because of this issue. The decentralized market of ideas will address the "quacks" in the room, as I don't trust any central authority to do that for me.
If a centralized authority wields power in a way that creates negative consequences, you don't give them _more_ power, or just hope that they'll do the right thing.
No I don't agree with censoring _any_ voices - precisely because of this issue. The decentralized market of ideas will address the "quacks" in the room, as I don't trust any central authority to do that for me.
If a centralized authority wields power in a way that creates negative consequences, you don't give them _more_ power, or just hope that they'll do the right thing.
"the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes. History teems with instances of truth put down by persecution. If not suppressed forever, it may be thrown back for centuries."
– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html)
– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html)
I don't think on any time scale that the marketplace of ideas is sufficient to get rid of quacks. There are plenty of popular health-related practices which have had plenty of time to demonstrate their clinical efficacy, but which have failed to do so. Acupuncture, reiki, homeopathy etc all have people that believe in them despite the absence of evidence.
But on _short_ timescales, during an emergency when people are emotional, and in a context where media can benefit from amplifying a message whether or not it's true ... we've seen enough people believe some harmful stuff, and sometimes require extra medical attention because of it.
I'm not saying censorship alone is an answer -- but the marketplace of ideas is not functioning as you describe.
But on _short_ timescales, during an emergency when people are emotional, and in a context where media can benefit from amplifying a message whether or not it's true ... we've seen enough people believe some harmful stuff, and sometimes require extra medical attention because of it.
I'm not saying censorship alone is an answer -- but the marketplace of ideas is not functioning as you describe.
>we've seen enough people believe some harmful stuff, and sometimes require extra medical attention because of it.
>I'm not saying censorship alone is an answer -- but the marketplace of ideas is not functioning as you describe.
Honestly, neither is curated news. At the time of this poll, 41% of people who identified as Democrats believe that if someone caught covid, their chance of hospitalization was 50% or higher. The actual number is 1-5%. Massive amounts of Republicans and Independents also believed this as well. You assume a fair, pure and incorruptible curator, which doesn't exist. Censorship isn't the answer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/briefing/atlanta-shooting...
>I'm not saying censorship alone is an answer -- but the marketplace of ideas is not functioning as you describe.
Honestly, neither is curated news. At the time of this poll, 41% of people who identified as Democrats believe that if someone caught covid, their chance of hospitalization was 50% or higher. The actual number is 1-5%. Massive amounts of Republicans and Independents also believed this as well. You assume a fair, pure and incorruptible curator, which doesn't exist. Censorship isn't the answer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/briefing/atlanta-shooting...
[deleted]
> The decentralized market of ideas will address the "quacks" in the room, as I don't trust any central authority to do that for me.
It'll magically take care of itself? Based on what evidence?
It'll magically take care of itself? Based on what evidence?
Based on all of recorded history.
For example, we didn't need the Vatican, a king, or some other central committee to tell us that the sun was the center of our solar system - eventually the data and market of ideas exposed the best & correct ideas.
The best disinfectant for bad ideas is more sunlight - not coverups.
For example, we didn't need the Vatican, a king, or some other central committee to tell us that the sun was the center of our solar system - eventually the data and market of ideas exposed the best & correct ideas.
The best disinfectant for bad ideas is more sunlight - not coverups.
It feels different now, as if the quacks have voice-amplifying tools they didn't have hundreds of years ago.
Tools that have been painstakingly engineered to exploit bugs in the human brain's OS.
Tools that have been painstakingly engineered to exploit bugs in the human brain's OS.
People said the same thing when they invented the printing press and the radio and pretty much any other time it suddenly became easier for people to get their message out.
On the whole I tend to view it as a good thing overall rather than a negative.
On the whole I tend to view it as a good thing overall rather than a negative.
I agree, but still... it feels different this time, somehow.
Maybe because few people had the means to shout everyone else down in the past. When everybody has a printing press or a radio station, it turns out that the noise floor gets really high. Everybody spends more time writing and talking, and less time reading and listening.
We're finding that the ability to boost your signal above the noise floor isn't even vaguely correlated to the merits of the message, the way overcoming resistance from editorial gatekeepers was in earlier times. Freedom of the press used to be the exclusive preserve of those who owned one, and that wasn't right, but now it goes to whoever yells the loudest, and I'm not convinced that's going to work out better for us all in the long run.
Sure hope it does, but early signs aren't inspiring.
Maybe because few people had the means to shout everyone else down in the past. When everybody has a printing press or a radio station, it turns out that the noise floor gets really high. Everybody spends more time writing and talking, and less time reading and listening.
We're finding that the ability to boost your signal above the noise floor isn't even vaguely correlated to the merits of the message, the way overcoming resistance from editorial gatekeepers was in earlier times. Freedom of the press used to be the exclusive preserve of those who owned one, and that wasn't right, but now it goes to whoever yells the loudest, and I'm not convinced that's going to work out better for us all in the long run.
Sure hope it does, but early signs aren't inspiring.
not true - people are susceptible to propaganda and marketing. lies spread mimetically, truth does not
Sure, that took hundreds of years, we really don't have that sort of time during a pandemic.
During a pandemic, we also don't want to immediately fixate on a wrong idea, and not allow dissent.
As evidence, I gesture about me.
As evidence, I gesture about me.
So? When time is short, nobody knows which ideas are right.
Which is why you don't ban people from platforms and demonize them when they present alternate ideas. Especially when those people up until the "pandemic" were considered experts in their fields and have equal or greater training then the "experts" on TV who have never actually seen patients and worked in the government for 40 years.
"The decentralized market of ideas will address the "quacks" in the room" This used to be the case, it no longer is in the time of social media. The voices of the quacks are amplified and they gain legions of followers. Just look at the rise of Q as an example and the current political climate. Any crazy fact can be thrown out and if it supports their world view, a good percentage of people will believe it without looking any deeper than what the guy on Twitter said.
This was never the case unless you have a very strange reading of history. Look how long bad ideas like witches causing problems persisted and the popularity of mob justice for such acts.
In principle I agree with you but in practice quacks take advantage of people’s weaknesses, so it’s a balance between open marketplace and some very basic rules. But I agree with you in principle.
Isn't twitter part of the market of ideas? The NYT ect? The idea that we could have an information ecosystem devoid of human judgement is new or at least not widespread before the internet. It was part of a utopian idea, not entirely different from the ethos powering say crypto that we could encode simple rules and the truth would filter to the top, but that isn't how the public square worked before the internet, quite the opposite, your ability to reach anyone outside your town was pretty dependent on a small handful of companies and those utopian thinkers never really managed to show the rules they came up with for how that information should be spread resulted in truth
[deleted]
>The decentralized market of ideas will address the "quacks" in the room, as I don't trust any central authority to do that for me.
Name one time in the entirety of recorded history when "the decentralized market of ideas" did anything of the sort.
Name one time in the entirety of recorded history when "the decentralized market of ideas" did anything of the sort.
> Name one time in the entirety of recorded history when "the decentralized market of ideas" did anything of the sort.
This is literally how most scientific progress is made.
This is literally how most scientific progress is made.
According to Structure of Scientific Revolutions this isn't true; people hold onto silly ideas firmly for their entire lives, and they have to be discredited either by a revolution or retiring so they can't fight for it anymore.
Linguistics being an example where ideas about grammar are only accepted because Chomsky is still around forcing everyone to accept them; AI language models don't seem to follow them.
Linguistics being an example where ideas about grammar are only accepted because Chomsky is still around forcing everyone to accept them; AI language models don't seem to follow them.
No, scientific progress is made by people educated in a particular field of study in the work of prior authorities in that field, making hypotheses and following established experimental methods, then publishing their results for review and verification by their peers. In other words, by the "centralized authority" of scientific consensus.
Science absolutely does not work by just letting everyone believe whatever they want and somehow just expecting the truth to "win."
Science absolutely does not work by just letting everyone believe whatever they want and somehow just expecting the truth to "win."
I would call a group of educated professionals debating all sides / data for a particular hypothesis, coming to a general consensus after rigorous evaluation and debate, essentially what the "market of ideas" is meant to convey.
What you don't see here, for example, is any mention of a "President of Science" or other committee making that call, nor particular suppression of lines of inquiry.
What you don't see here, for example, is any mention of a "President of Science" or other committee making that call, nor particular suppression of lines of inquiry.
What you also don't see in that process is every viewpoint given equal weight and consideration, or in the case of ignorant quacks, even any consideration.
And that’s decided by the president of science?
No, it's decided by an unelected cabal of experts (appointed by the previous cabal of experts), who vet and haze new entrants for years and decades, before so much as giving them five minutes of their time, or letting them speak to a room full of laymen who don't know better (undergraduates).
You're right, though, public vaccine discourse would have been significantly better if we required internet research experts like Joe Rogan or any of the talking heads on Fox to have a PHD in immunology or epidemiology or at least a double-masters in biology and economics before we allowed them to speak to more than ~ten people at a time.
You're right, though, public vaccine discourse would have been significantly better if we required internet research experts like Joe Rogan or any of the talking heads on Fox to have a PHD in immunology or epidemiology or at least a double-masters in biology and economics before we allowed them to speak to more than ~ten people at a time.
The pandemic really was a case study in why free speech is so important and how little of it we have on the Internet.
Aaron Swartz warned bout this a lot. It was like his main thing.
Aaron Swartz warned bout this a lot. It was like his main thing.
There was no discussion to be had. The fear was that COVID would mutate into something deadly like the Spanish Flu epidemic and we’d instantly lose an entire generation of kids. That didn’t end up happening but we couldn’t have known that until after.
The way it’s framed now, you’d think officials were weighing a 1% fatality rate against lockdowns. That’s silly. Before the vaccines were prepared and distributed, mutation was the much higher threat.
The way it’s framed now, you’d think officials were weighing a 1% fatality rate against lockdowns. That’s silly. Before the vaccines were prepared and distributed, mutation was the much higher threat.
Regardless of what side of the fence you sit on, the least we should see is public health agencies take a position that we are smarter than we were when this whole thing started and start to think about a guiding policy for the long term. Many large companies the size of small countries have already adjusted their policies for the long term. Is that what we have to come to expect in the world that our working environments are ahead of our public health agencies?
Frustration is an emotion which seems to be ever increasing against a monolith that is the internet, where your voice doesn't feel like it matters, because you can't see the reaction of anyone.
Being on the internet is much like wearing a mask. It's VERY interesting how that progressed. It's like internet culture is infecting real life. People in real life becoming faceless and hive-mindish.
Ah, commonsense."news", the Bari Weiss platform. Excuse me while I go elsewhere for reliable news.
This is a really biased article pushing a particular viewpoint. If it wasn't, you would also include the studies the demonstrate the number of lives saved by lockdowns that happened, the impact of different levels and types of lockdowns etc.
A good summary with links is here: https://www.the-scientist.com/features/counting-the-lives-sa...
A good summary with links is here: https://www.the-scientist.com/features/counting-the-lives-sa...
Some of those studies strike me as wildly off base. E.g.
> On a more positive note, Ferguson and other researchers at Imperial College London published a model in Nature around the same time estimating that more than 3 million deaths had been avoided in the UK as a result of the policies that were put in place.
3 million people is ~5% of the entire UK population. Even using the high end of COVID IFR estimates (2%, from northern Italy), it would have required everyone in the UK to get COVID twice with no natural immunity to reach that kind of death toll.
Also:
> The most effective measure, they found, was getting people not to travel to work, while school closures had relatively little effect.
That article appears to agree with this one.
> On a more positive note, Ferguson and other researchers at Imperial College London published a model in Nature around the same time estimating that more than 3 million deaths had been avoided in the UK as a result of the policies that were put in place.
3 million people is ~5% of the entire UK population. Even using the high end of COVID IFR estimates (2%, from northern Italy), it would have required everyone in the UK to get COVID twice with no natural immunity to reach that kind of death toll.
Also:
> The most effective measure, they found, was getting people not to travel to work, while school closures had relatively little effect.
That article appears to agree with this one.
> 3 million people is ~5% of the entire UK population. Even using the high end of COVID IFR estimates (2%, from northern Italy), it would have required everyone in the UK to get COVID twice with no natural immunity to reach that kind of death toll.
Looks like the article on the-scientist summarized the relevant study incorrectly. The study itself posits 3.1 million deaths averted across 11 countries in Europe, not just in the UK:
> We find that across 11 countries 3.1 (2.8–3.5) million deaths have been averted owing to interventions since the beginning of the epidemic.
A bit concerning though that the second paragraph in the the-scientist article made such a significant mistake in summarizing the research.
Looks like the article on the-scientist summarized the relevant study incorrectly. The study itself posits 3.1 million deaths averted across 11 countries in Europe, not just in the UK:
> We find that across 11 countries 3.1 (2.8–3.5) million deaths have been averted owing to interventions since the beginning of the epidemic.
A bit concerning though that the second paragraph in the the-scientist article made such a significant mistake in summarizing the research.
I can't vouch for the specific number but the IFR with good treatment is very different from the number you get if healthcare is overwhelmed. There's a tipping point where a lot of people that normally would "just" be hospitalized won't make it, and the scary part is that it also affects the 45-60 years old.
You would also have to consider people who cannot be treated for other diseases (e.g. appendicitis), compound effects on the number of available beds due to doctors and nurses being sick, etc.
You would also have to consider people who cannot be treated for other diseases (e.g. appendicitis), compound effects on the number of available beds due to doctors and nurses being sick, etc.
Which is a fine point to make! but to reference zero published studies talking about lives saves from Nature etc is a clear bias.
Obligatory
“Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have concluded that lockdowns have done little to reduce COVID deaths but have had “devastating effects” on economies and numerous social ills.”
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature...
“Researchers at Johns Hopkins University have concluded that lockdowns have done little to reduce COVID deaths but have had “devastating effects” on economies and numerous social ills.”
https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature...
Also obligatory is to point out the fact that the "study" was not peer reviewed; that it was written by economists, not public health experts (and has been severely criticized by several people who are recognized experts); that one of the authors (Hanke) is a senior director at a so-called think tank known for its is extreme pro-market bias; and that he published several basically crank tweets comparing lockdowns with 1930s German fascism.
But did you read it?
I read enough of it to perform a basic smell test, yes. And in fact it's pretty easy to spot some of its more obvious shortcomings, as other reviewers have.
Exactly as we would expect to find in the output of ideologically-driven academics working far outside of their own fields.
Exactly as we would expect to find in the output of ideologically-driven academics working far outside of their own fields.
What would the motive be to make a fake research paper? We should compare that of the motive partisan government leaders have to force lockdowns.
What would the motive be to make a fake research paper?
Few things are more seductive than the knowledge that your cause is just. And that you, and your tribe, just have to be right.
Few things are more seductive than the knowledge that your cause is just. And that you, and your tribe, just have to be right.
[deleted]
Please consider the source. These authors are health care officials working for Rick Scott (Republican governor of Florida) and Glenn Youngkin (Republican governor of Virginia), both of whom have a hard political stance downplaying COVID.
Please also consider more then just who wrote it. Otherwise you end up in an echo chamber. Either they can make a valid point or they cant.
The problem is, considering everything regardless of intention / author would mean wasting a lot of time and energy.
In other words, someone is always going to jump up and down for your attention, willing to spew bs (sometimes mixed with fact), to slow you down and delay you. Being able to ignore it and focus on real issues is important.
In other words, someone is always going to jump up and down for your attention, willing to spew bs (sometimes mixed with fact), to slow you down and delay you. Being able to ignore it and focus on real issues is important.
Sure but its unfortunately not optional if you dont want to end up in a echochamber. And being in one gets dangerous fast.
If you filter something as bullshit, you should at least be able to say why it is bullshit, outside of just who wrote it.
If you filter something as bullshit, you should at least be able to say why it is bullshit, outside of just who wrote it.
I disagree, but I get a portion of my view on it from "The Ass Is A Poor Receptacle For The Head: Why Democrats Suck At Communication, And How They Could Improve". (https://www.amazon.com/Ass-Poor-Receptacle-Head-Communicatio...)
It goes into how Democrats get mired in reacting / reading / responding to everything, when detractors are acting in bad faith to consume their time / fill the airwaves and media.
I recommend the book. It's great, short, and applicable far outside Democrats / politics.
It goes into how Democrats get mired in reacting / reading / responding to everything, when detractors are acting in bad faith to consume their time / fill the airwaves and media.
I recommend the book. It's great, short, and applicable far outside Democrats / politics.
Again, i get what problem you are trying to solve, but i fail how you can prevent yourself from falling down an echo chamber this way.
Maybe affiliation comes from belief and not the other way around. Would you really expect someone this critical of the CDC and the Democratic approach to COVID to be politically aligned with the people pushing those policies?
[deleted]
[deleted]
> In this, the leaders of these American health agencies made the U.S. an international outlier in how it treats children. Sweden never offered vaccination to children under 12. Finland limits Covid vaccines to children under 12 who are at high risk. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health has appropriately stated that “some children may benefit” but “previous infection offers as good of protection as the vaccine against reinfection.” Denmark announced on June 22 that its recommendation to vaccinate any children under age 16 was a mistake.
> Sweden never offered vaccination to children under 12
They (we) did. A list containing children under 12 who got vaccinated is at the center of a data breach this very week.
There was also an uptick in deaths among young school-age children, which was somewhat 'offset' by lower deaths in the 12+ age-ranges. Vaccinating children doesn't do nothing, but with a small effect focusing on small at risk groups might be wise.
They (we) did. A list containing children under 12 who got vaccinated is at the center of a data breach this very week.
There was also an uptick in deaths among young school-age children, which was somewhat 'offset' by lower deaths in the 12+ age-ranges. Vaccinating children doesn't do nothing, but with a small effect focusing on small at risk groups might be wise.
Children never needed it. Their chances of dying to covid are basically zero. And since it seems to do absolutely nothing to prevent the spread, there's no reason whatsoever to give it them other than it'd very profitable to our industrial drug dealers to do so.
My family is sick with covid right now. My wife and I are overweight and so the doctor prescribed us Paxlovid. Day one was terrible, the sickest I've been in my adult life. I literally had pneumonia a month ago and it wasn't as bad.
Things have been substantially better for my wife and I since we started Paxlovid. Our seven year old is feeling fine, and our three year old who is disabled and tends to get sick fairly often has a fever and slept for a day straight and had the world's worst diarrhea. Her doctor (who almost exclusively sees disabled kids like her) seems completely unconcerned about it and said to just treat it like any other illness, push fluids and give her Tylenol and Ibuprofen alternately to keep her fever down.
Things have been substantially better for my wife and I since we started Paxlovid. Our seven year old is feeling fine, and our three year old who is disabled and tends to get sick fairly often has a fever and slept for a day straight and had the world's worst diarrhea. Her doctor (who almost exclusively sees disabled kids like her) seems completely unconcerned about it and said to just treat it like any other illness, push fluids and give her Tylenol and Ibuprofen alternately to keep her fever down.
Anecdotal.
[deleted]
My impression working with a couple pubilic health agencies over the last half decade or so is that they are considered effectively "rogue" by the institutions they are accountable to, they operate as surveillance organizations with the same kind of secrecy culture as intelligence work, their management staff revolve in and out from international NGOs and univeristy admins, they treat privacy laws and policy with contempt, epidemiologists aren't doctors or biologists but "social scientists" with a particular critical bent, and they are very concerned about being held accountable for the policies they have influenced and executed because they know what they tried to do.
Mostly, they are good people wanting to do good work, but imo, public health agencies have become a para-intelligence services with explicitly political aims. There is a network of academics who see health and health information as a policy lever, and they have been out in force leveraging it through public health agencies during the pandemic.
I think they have discredited themselves over travel bans, vax passports, the objectively insane and poisonous rhetoric about the "hesitant," and arbitrary mandates with no accountability for those who enforced them. I don't think they can be trusted to be arbiters of science for people with a basic statistical reasoning skills and a belief in the existence of truth. The article articulates a more general and relevant sentiment, which is that the medical establishment has forfeited its public trust.
Mostly, they are good people wanting to do good work, but imo, public health agencies have become a para-intelligence services with explicitly political aims. There is a network of academics who see health and health information as a policy lever, and they have been out in force leveraging it through public health agencies during the pandemic.
I think they have discredited themselves over travel bans, vax passports, the objectively insane and poisonous rhetoric about the "hesitant," and arbitrary mandates with no accountability for those who enforced them. I don't think they can be trusted to be arbiters of science for people with a basic statistical reasoning skills and a belief in the existence of truth. The article articulates a more general and relevant sentiment, which is that the medical establishment has forfeited its public trust.
> epidemiologists aren't doctors or biologists but "social scientists" with a particular critical bent
Many, if not most of the epidemiologists at the CDC hold M.Ds, and I can speak from personal experience that many have disdain for both political parties
For example there is a lot of frustration at how the media is making a giant scare about Monkeypox, when it is isolated to certain communities and can be prevented with the smallpox vaccine which we already have stockpiled.
> they operate as surveillance organizations with the same kind of secrecy culture as intelligence work
This is blatantly false - the CDC publishes almost everything it does. Mostly boring statistics, reporting, investigating claims
>public health agencies have become a para-intelligence services with explicitly political aims
Really?
>I think they have discredited themselves over travel bans, vax passports, the objectively insane and poisonous rhetoric about the "hesitant,"
You should visit the CDC's public museum in Atlanta - I think you will see all the good that vaccines and antibiotics have done for the world. Little else in medicine matters, comparatively, in terms of increased lifespans around the globe
Many, if not most of the epidemiologists at the CDC hold M.Ds, and I can speak from personal experience that many have disdain for both political parties
For example there is a lot of frustration at how the media is making a giant scare about Monkeypox, when it is isolated to certain communities and can be prevented with the smallpox vaccine which we already have stockpiled.
> they operate as surveillance organizations with the same kind of secrecy culture as intelligence work
This is blatantly false - the CDC publishes almost everything it does. Mostly boring statistics, reporting, investigating claims
>public health agencies have become a para-intelligence services with explicitly political aims
Really?
>I think they have discredited themselves over travel bans, vax passports, the objectively insane and poisonous rhetoric about the "hesitant,"
You should visit the CDC's public museum in Atlanta - I think you will see all the good that vaccines and antibiotics have done for the world. Little else in medicine matters, comparatively, in terms of increased lifespans around the globe
> You should visit the CDC's public museum in Atlanta - I think you will see all the good that vaccines and antibiotics have done for the world. Little else in medicine matters, comparatively, in terms of increased lifespans around the globe
I read parent as talking about things that happened during covid. Do the measures around covid deserve the same kind of reverence that things like penicilin (why are antibiotics relevant in this thread anyway?) or the first vaccines do?
I read parent as talking about things that happened during covid. Do the measures around covid deserve the same kind of reverence that things like penicilin (why are antibiotics relevant in this thread anyway?) or the first vaccines do?
They did say "my impression", so I'm assuming it's mostly backed up by nothing.
> epidemiologists aren't doctors or biologists but "social scientists" with a particular critical bent
I have 12 years of postsecondary education in life science (medicine, health sciences, biochemistry and cancer/cell bio research at the graduate level) and this is completely, unequivocally false.
I have 12 years of postsecondary education in life science (medicine, health sciences, biochemistry and cancer/cell bio research at the graduate level) and this is completely, unequivocally false.
[deleted]
n=? Epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist are radically different disciplines, and epidemiology in public health is a social science research job, and categorically not necessarily a life sciences job. These people research equity.
Sorry you couldn't do more with your background, but epidemiologists in public health just need a master's, and often just an undergrad with some stats skills. Many even have PhD's, but in policy areas, and not life sciences. There was not a single microscope let alone a biolab in the municipal public health units who were responsible for pandemic response and policy advice. Hospitals? Sure. But the people who were making pandemic policy were absolutely not analyzing samples.
I would go so far as to say that epidemiologist has become like software engineers and architects, but for public policy. They are teaching epidemiology in cultural studies programs. The real thing is as rigorous as infectious disease research, but if we are being unequivocal - the policy people are hacks.
Sorry you couldn't do more with your background, but epidemiologists in public health just need a master's, and often just an undergrad with some stats skills. Many even have PhD's, but in policy areas, and not life sciences. There was not a single microscope let alone a biolab in the municipal public health units who were responsible for pandemic response and policy advice. Hospitals? Sure. But the people who were making pandemic policy were absolutely not analyzing samples.
I would go so far as to say that epidemiologist has become like software engineers and architects, but for public policy. They are teaching epidemiology in cultural studies programs. The real thing is as rigorous as infectious disease research, but if we are being unequivocal - the policy people are hacks.
> These people research equity.
This is the same partisan complaint no matter the topic. Everything is a nail since all you have is this one hammer.
This is the same partisan complaint no matter the topic. Everything is a nail since all you have is this one hammer.
Health institutions shouldn't be government controlled. The CDC should be totally free of all branches of government to make its recommendations. Both the Biden and Trump administration have pushed the CDC into some policy it wouldn't have had.
well somebody gotta watch them, the notion that the government is unique in its "power corrupt" tendency is false. Just look at the supreme court or the FED.
[deleted]
Anyone who unironically prefixes "science" with "the" doesn't understand science. The scientific method is pretty much the opposite of ten commandments inscribed in stone.
The phrase “the science” only appears once in the article and in that instance it’s in scare quotes.
[deleted]
For a second there I thought this was an actual news organization's article, but actually it's a blog. Kind of funny how neither cites sources for claims, tho. "Honest news for sane people" indeed.
[deleted]
Anything with 'common sense' in the title has become a red flag for me.
It of course has numerous allusory and whistling characteristics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense
It certainly has populist appeal, and is consciously used to evoke same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense
It certainly has populist appeal, and is consciously used to evoke same.
I've never heard of "commonsense.news" before, but it is by Bari Weiss[0] who is trying to create an "anti-cancel culture," "anti-woke" University called the University of Austin[1]. Her Wikipedia on her history kind of speaks for itself, in particular the "2017–2020" section[0].
Why does this matter? Because most of the articles claims are based on "spoke to us" quotes from anonymous staffers which cannot be independently verified. So it falls to the reputation of those publishing and their journalistic integrity/process, and at that point I leave it to you to make up your own mind.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2017%E2%80%932020:_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Austin
Why does this matter? Because most of the articles claims are based on "spoke to us" quotes from anonymous staffers which cannot be independently verified. So it falls to the reputation of those publishing and their journalistic integrity/process, and at that point I leave it to you to make up your own mind.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2017%E2%80%932020:_...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Austin
On HN we try to go by article quality, not site quality: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... The author names here are probably more important than whoever owns the site. Their credentials are on the line if the sources they claim to be quoting are made up. That doesn't prove anything, of course, but one's always guessing with these things, and readers need to make up their own minds.
I understand the argument you're making, and it's not an obvious call, but I think it comes with more downside than upside, at least for HN. It's a trope of tribal internet argument (I mean in general—not talking about you here) to follow a "DAG of shame" in which you hop from any node to the most shameful associated thing, with the intention of discrediting the node from which you started. The problem is that each of those hops loses a lot of information, and one ends up in places that aren't particularly relevant, like whatever that university project is.
What's bad about this for HN is that it makes threads more generic, predictable, and repetitive. It also polarizes discussion along the most intense axis. All of this makes discussion less interesting and more inflammatory.
So while it's not an obvious call (more like 60-40 than 80-20) I think we're better off as a community to resist the habit of replacing topic X with the biggest or most shameful other-topic-Y that the dots connect to. It's not that there's no value in it, but it's the wrong move, given what we're trying to optimize for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
I understand the argument you're making, and it's not an obvious call, but I think it comes with more downside than upside, at least for HN. It's a trope of tribal internet argument (I mean in general—not talking about you here) to follow a "DAG of shame" in which you hop from any node to the most shameful associated thing, with the intention of discrediting the node from which you started. The problem is that each of those hops loses a lot of information, and one ends up in places that aren't particularly relevant, like whatever that university project is.
What's bad about this for HN is that it makes threads more generic, predictable, and repetitive. It also polarizes discussion along the most intense axis. All of this makes discussion less interesting and more inflammatory.
So while it's not an obvious call (more like 60-40 than 80-20) I think we're better off as a community to resist the habit of replacing topic X with the biggest or most shameful other-topic-Y that the dots connect to. It's not that there's no value in it, but it's the wrong move, given what we're trying to optimize for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
HN also recognises and deprecates numerous sources which have been shown to place little regard on truth or to generate needlessly and gratuitously provocative articles.
It's possible to give fair hearing without opening the door to bullshit once the bullshitter is known and demonstrated. Editorial voice is significant, as HN's own moderation strives toward and demonstrates.
It's possible to give fair hearing without opening the door to bullshit once the bullshitter is known and demonstrated. Editorial voice is significant, as HN's own moderation strives toward and demonstrates.
I understand this argument, and for technical matters, that's fine, but I don't think this is sensible as a general guide for medical or political sites like this one. These are very common snake-oil pits, and it's difficult for people without the necessary specialization of knowledge to discover the pitfalls. The source is sometimes the issue!
For better or worse, the principle here has always been to trust readers to be smart enough to make up their own minds (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). I'm not saying we all are (nor that I am), but I think it's the right principle, especially for this place, where trying to tell users what/how to think is guaranteed to provoke a backlash (quite separately from political position). The consequences of dropping that principle seem pretty negative to me.
Following standard ideological grooves to discredit the other tribe's sources is not acting from specialist knowledge in any case. The only specialty at work in such discussion is the specialty of internet battle. That's ultimately just a way to turn every thread into a boring, if intense, flamewar.
One of the things that follows from HN's core principle of intellectual curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) is the principle of diffs (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). Diffs are what's interesting. This is the positive formulation of the principle that repetition is bad for curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...).
For topics that burn hot, like political/ideological ones, this "diff" principle implies that discussion is most interesting (and therefore best for HN) when people don't take the obvious path from their own initial position—that is, when they don't repeat the reaction that they've had most often before. That is a hard thing to ask on the hottest topics, which tend to melt into a few (well, two) monolithic piles of tar. But I think it follows from the principle.
Here's another thing that I think follows, and is even harder to swallow. To the extent that someone has strong political/ideological views, if they're not seeing articles on HN that they strongly disagree with, at least semi-regularly, then there's probably something wrong with HN*.
That isn't always great for community spirit because it only takes a few disagreeable data points before the mind starts to defend itself with a "this place sucks" reaction (and there are people on all ideological sides who develop such reactions). I wrote about this here, if anyone wants to read more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098.
* To ward off one common misunderstanding: that is not a Goldilocks argument for split-the-difference centrism! It's an argument for unpredictability. Since centrism is just as predictable as other ideologies, it should encounter just as much to be put off by.
Following standard ideological grooves to discredit the other tribe's sources is not acting from specialist knowledge in any case. The only specialty at work in such discussion is the specialty of internet battle. That's ultimately just a way to turn every thread into a boring, if intense, flamewar.
One of the things that follows from HN's core principle of intellectual curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...) is the principle of diffs (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...). Diffs are what's interesting. This is the positive formulation of the principle that repetition is bad for curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...).
For topics that burn hot, like political/ideological ones, this "diff" principle implies that discussion is most interesting (and therefore best for HN) when people don't take the obvious path from their own initial position—that is, when they don't repeat the reaction that they've had most often before. That is a hard thing to ask on the hottest topics, which tend to melt into a few (well, two) monolithic piles of tar. But I think it follows from the principle.
Here's another thing that I think follows, and is even harder to swallow. To the extent that someone has strong political/ideological views, if they're not seeing articles on HN that they strongly disagree with, at least semi-regularly, then there's probably something wrong with HN*.
That isn't always great for community spirit because it only takes a few disagreeable data points before the mind starts to defend itself with a "this place sucks" reaction (and there are people on all ideological sides who develop such reactions). I wrote about this here, if anyone wants to read more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23308098.
* To ward off one common misunderstanding: that is not a Goldilocks argument for split-the-difference centrism! It's an argument for unpredictability. Since centrism is just as predictable as other ideologies, it should encounter just as much to be put off by.
> the principle here has always been to trust readers to be smart enough to make up their own minds
That's a fine principle. By extension, it should also be fine for commenters to note facts about sources. You are right that internet discussion can be derailed by the DAG of association, but internet discussion based solely on "what does the article say?" is naïve, amounting to borderline sealioning.
Part of critical thinking and reading is understanding the POV of the author(s) and publisher(s), and considering their motivations and incentives.
That's a fine principle. By extension, it should also be fine for commenters to note facts about sources. You are right that internet discussion can be derailed by the DAG of association, but internet discussion based solely on "what does the article say?" is naïve, amounting to borderline sealioning.
Part of critical thinking and reading is understanding the POV of the author(s) and publisher(s), and considering their motivations and incentives.
Sure, but "noting facts about sources" is so broad that it can cover everything from adding neutral, interesting information all the way to tribal warfare. It's the latter that I'm objecting to (for HN), for reasons I think I've described already: it makes threads more repetitive, predictable, and nasty.
I don't think the DAG-of-shame game really has to do with curiosity about facts. It has to do with tarring ideological enemies. Maybe they deserve it, maybe they don't, but it's not the quality of discussion we want here.
Rather than an ambiguous phrase like "noting facts about sources", I think we're better off applying the clearer distinction between curious conversation and ideological battle. There's a binary distinction between those two things (as binary as these things can get), and we know which one we want on this site.
Moreover, one destroys the other, so it needs to be actively moderated. I don't just mean what moderators do, but the general sense of dampening excesses and avoiding extremes. We want a culture of moderation on HN—not for its own sake, but because curiosity only flowers in a temperate climate.
(By the way, I'm not disagreeing ideologically with any of the comments that I'm objecting to here. This is about discussion quality and attempting to organize the site around one specific value: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....)
I don't think the DAG-of-shame game really has to do with curiosity about facts. It has to do with tarring ideological enemies. Maybe they deserve it, maybe they don't, but it's not the quality of discussion we want here.
Rather than an ambiguous phrase like "noting facts about sources", I think we're better off applying the clearer distinction between curious conversation and ideological battle. There's a binary distinction between those two things (as binary as these things can get), and we know which one we want on this site.
Moreover, one destroys the other, so it needs to be actively moderated. I don't just mean what moderators do, but the general sense of dampening excesses and avoiding extremes. We want a culture of moderation on HN—not for its own sake, but because curiosity only flowers in a temperate climate.
(By the way, I'm not disagreeing ideologically with any of the comments that I'm objecting to here. This is about discussion quality and attempting to organize the site around one specific value: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....)
Aren’t some topics just out of bounds for discussion here though? Topics by their nature which produce discussion unsuitable for what you want at HN. I’ve seen commenters push back on music threads, for instance. And much sex talk seems to quickly devolve from anything productive here.
> Aren’t some topics just out of bounds for discussion here though?
No, if you look in the site guidelines you'll see that they say "Most" stories on certain themes are off topic, and that word is there intentionally. It allows for exceptions, especially when there's either something interestingly different about a story, or some significant new information to discuss.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
For past explanations about how we think about this in terms of political topics, see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... There are lots of links there to where I've explained this in detail. If anyone has a question that I haven't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
Stories drawn from the arts, like music and also literature and painting, or more generally from history, archaeology, you name it, are most welcome here as long as they offer something of intellectual curiosity. So if HN commenters are pushing back on a story just because it's about e.g. music, that would be bad. (But if it were a gossipy story about a famous musician, say, that would be different.)
Sex is its own special case in all things, so we would have to talk about that separately.
No, if you look in the site guidelines you'll see that they say "Most" stories on certain themes are off topic, and that word is there intentionally. It allows for exceptions, especially when there's either something interestingly different about a story, or some significant new information to discuss.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
For past explanations about how we think about this in terms of political topics, see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... There are lots of links there to where I've explained this in detail. If anyone has a question that I haven't answered there, I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
Stories drawn from the arts, like music and also literature and painting, or more generally from history, archaeology, you name it, are most welcome here as long as they offer something of intellectual curiosity. So if HN commenters are pushing back on a story just because it's about e.g. music, that would be bad. (But if it were a gossipy story about a famous musician, say, that would be different.)
Sex is its own special case in all things, so we would have to talk about that separately.
Good to know. Thank you.
I don't read the parent comment as calling for Bari Weiss's substack to be banned from the site, but rather just providing some context about what the site is. I'd have maybe pointed out more about the contrarian impulse of the site, and how that interacts with this topic (being contrarian about public health policy surrounding COVID is a click magnet), but either way it seems like a colorably valuable comment.
If the comment opened with something like "I stopped reading at commonsense.news because Bari Weiss is bad", that'd be a different matter, but they have a substantive critique of the actual article.
Given the weak sourcing, it feels like this article, in particular, flunks the "divisive subjects require more thought and substance" test.
I loathe Bari Weiss, so, grain of salt on all this.
If the comment opened with something like "I stopped reading at commonsense.news because Bari Weiss is bad", that'd be a different matter, but they have a substantive critique of the actual article.
Given the weak sourcing, it feels like this article, in particular, flunks the "divisive subjects require more thought and substance" test.
I loathe Bari Weiss, so, grain of salt on all this.
If the entire article is based on "This guy told me this off the record" then what do we have to go by other than the authority of the source? "Article quality" is completely based on verifiability of evidence here. I actually somewhat agree with the main thrust that CDC is completely politicized and can no longer be trusted. This article does not help and is just noise.
Seems like a fairly straightforward call by HN's own practices - if these big-if-true claims are supportable, there's going to be more neutrally sourced, reputable reporting on it soon enough. So it's ok to wait. This wouldn't generally apply to a site that happens to have an ideological or political slant but seems ezmode for regular news, especially public-health news.
Thanks for fighting against ad hominem rhetorics
Ad hom is use of an irrelevant characteristic to impeach a witness or malign a viewpoint.
"You wear funny hats so you're not a credible expert on waffle irons" would be an ad hominem.[1]
Noting the reputation and past history of a speaker or source, or noting well-known rhetorical red flags (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.1.1.html) is what we'd now call a strong Bayesian prior. It's not a proof that a source, speaker, document, or publication is wrong, but it's a fairly strong grounds for suspecting that might be the case.
https://www.thoughtco.com/ad-hominem-fallacy-1689062
And in a world in which asymmetric costs favour bullshit, it's a useful and often necessary approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law
________________________________
Notes:
1. In practice, "funny hats" might well be references to non-Western clothing (see The Little Prince for a fictional illustration), or speech, or gender, or religous affiliation (religious exclusion was common in top US universities well into the 1970s). It's still practiced in many regards. What this ignores is the specific capabilities or validity of claims or methods.
"You wear funny hats so you're not a credible expert on waffle irons" would be an ad hominem.[1]
Noting the reputation and past history of a speaker or source, or noting well-known rhetorical red flags (http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/sophist_refut.1.1.html) is what we'd now call a strong Bayesian prior. It's not a proof that a source, speaker, document, or publication is wrong, but it's a fairly strong grounds for suspecting that might be the case.
https://www.thoughtco.com/ad-hominem-fallacy-1689062
And in a world in which asymmetric costs favour bullshit, it's a useful and often necessary approach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law
________________________________
Notes:
1. In practice, "funny hats" might well be references to non-Western clothing (see The Little Prince for a fictional illustration), or speech, or gender, or religous affiliation (religious exclusion was common in top US universities well into the 1970s). It's still practiced in many regards. What this ignores is the specific capabilities or validity of claims or methods.
That is not a correct use of ad hominem. Translated literally, it is "against the person," which is what an ad hominem attack is -- an argument against the bearer of the idea that does not argue against the idea itself.
An argument against the idea was almost presented (anonymous staffers whose quotes cannot be independently verified) but was let down by its conclusion (it falls to the reputation.)
There was nothing in OP's argument that contradicted the claims that were made other than those that go against the reputation of the author, ergo even if they are valid, they are definitely _ad hominem_.
An argument against the idea was almost presented (anonymous staffers whose quotes cannot be independently verified) but was let down by its conclusion (it falls to the reputation.)
There was nothing in OP's argument that contradicted the claims that were made other than those that go against the reputation of the author, ergo even if they are valid, they are definitely _ad hominem_.
This would be a more interesting rebuttal if the story itself didn't stake the validity of these arguments on the identities of the people making them. Given that it's based in part on an appeal to the authority of, e.g., anonymous NIH scientists (in which group? with what kind of tenure?), pointing out the anonymity of the sources is not at all fallacious.
One could uncharitably rephrase your argument as "this woman is a witch and any article on this witch's site is heretical".
There are a lot of valid scientific reasons to criticize the CDC's approach to the COVID pandemic, including their own publications[1]. One could also point to the different paths taken by other OECD nations with respect to children and see that the CDC diverged sharply, but presented no data to justify those policies.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/eis/field-epi-manual/chapters/Communicat...
There are a lot of valid scientific reasons to criticize the CDC's approach to the COVID pandemic, including their own publications[1]. One could also point to the different paths taken by other OECD nations with respect to children and see that the CDC diverged sharply, but presented no data to justify those policies.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/eis/field-epi-manual/chapters/Communicat...
that would indeed be uncharitable because witches don't exist
if you replace witch with "unreliable source", a thing that does exist, it would be a more intellectually honest rephrasing
if you replace witch with "unreliable source", a thing that does exist, it would be a more intellectually honest rephrasing
I'm using it as a stand in for disfavored woman in society. I don't always or even generally agree with her, but there are some valid critiques of the CDC in the article, and that has nothing to do with anything she has or has not said in other places.
> I'm using it as a stand in for disfavored woman in society.
if you used it as a stand-in for "unreliable source", it would be a more intellectually honest rephrasing, as that is the actual objection here, and your attempt to reframe an unreliable source as "oh people just disfavor them" obviously disregards their unreliability, as well as ignores why the source is disfavored (because it is not reliable)
if you used it as a stand-in for "unreliable source", it would be a more intellectually honest rephrasing, as that is the actual objection here, and your attempt to reframe an unreliable source as "oh people just disfavor them" obviously disregards their unreliability, as well as ignores why the source is disfavored (because it is not reliable)
Most of the objection flowed from a snippet on Wikipedia about a tweet where she reposted an article by Glen Greenwald, that’s mostly stripped of context. She was arguing against vaccines, and to make that claim is unserious. So what’s really left? You don’t like her opinions on foreign policy? Me either, but that isn’t relevant.
> Most of the objection flowed from a snippet on Wikipedia about a tweet where she reposted an article by Glen Greenwald, that’s mostly stripped of context.
no, it didn't. most of the objection flowed from the lack of reliability of the source.
no, it didn't. most of the objection flowed from the lack of reliability of the source.
Th comment I was replying to[1] cites this[2] wikipedia section that is irrelevant to the topic and further comments in the thread mention the Glen Greenwald tweet. But, she didn't write the article wasn't written by her, but rather Marty Makary M.D., M.P.H. and Tracy Beth Høeg M.D., Ph.D. Dr. Makary. The source is on background, but that's typical for government agency sources who aren't whistle blowers. Any professor of medicine at Hopkins definitely knows people at the CDC, as many people from the Hopkins MPH program end up there.
Criticizing the meat of the article is fine, or pointing out a particular ax the author might have to grind is valid too. I'm taking issue with the criticism that Bair Weiss is a bad woman therefore anything on her site is fake news.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32100018
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2017%E2%80%932020:_...
Criticizing the meat of the article is fine, or pointing out a particular ax the author might have to grind is valid too. I'm taking issue with the criticism that Bair Weiss is a bad woman therefore anything on her site is fake news.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32100018
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bari_Weiss#2017%E2%80%932020:_...
the unreliable source in question is not a person, but a site
does the site have a track record of reliable fact checking from their editorial team which reviews submitted content?
does the site have a track record of reliable fact checking from their editorial team which reviews submitted content?
It's a substack blog that publishes opinion pieces. They're mostly aimed at subscribers who intentionally seek out content she curates or solicits. YOu know, a substack newsletter.
You can judge this article on its own merits, it's essentially a one off. It cites some sources, is written by subject matter experts, and is making claims about publicly available data. Do you really need a fact checker to gate keep here? I fail to see how the place of publication has any bearing here on the correctness or soundness of the arguments in the article.
You can judge this article on its own merits, it's essentially a one off. It cites some sources, is written by subject matter experts, and is making claims about publicly available data. Do you really need a fact checker to gate keep here? I fail to see how the place of publication has any bearing here on the correctness or soundness of the arguments in the article.
> One could uncharitably rephrase your argument [...]
But such intellectual dishonesty is discouraged on HN, so one shouldn't.
But such intellectual dishonesty is discouraged on HN, so one shouldn't.
I think my actual argument is clear. People who didn’t read the article are criticizing it because it appears on her sub stack. Based on their criticism of her, they have never actually read her writing but are engaged in a moral panic about wrong think.
For example people in the thread are calling her an anti-vaxer even though she’s on the record encouraging people to get vaccinated.
For example people in the thread are calling her an anti-vaxer even though she’s on the record encouraging people to get vaccinated.
> most of the articles claims are based on "spoke to us" quotes from anonymous staffers
She certainly learned a lot at the NYT.
She certainly learned a lot at the NYT.
remflight(1)
She compared herself to Galileo being threatened with burning at the stake, talk about being a professional victim. Not only is the anonymous sourcing suspect, but she herself thinks vaccines are not as effective as previous infections of Covid-19 and a negative test is better than a vaccine(!) and we know from studies that both are patently untrue, she has ulterior motives in anything to discredit vaccines. I don't know why she claims to be a left leaning centrist, that doesn't survive the slightest scrutiny of her published writing/twitter.
> and a negative test is better than a vaccine
That doesn't sound like something she would say, and I've never encountered her making that claim. I'm pretty sure she got vaccinated and has encouraged other people to do so as well. She does seem skeptical of the ability of the vaccines to prevent infection by newer variants. To some degree, that's probably true right?
That doesn't sound like something she would say, and I've never encountered her making that claim. I'm pretty sure she got vaccinated and has encouraged other people to do so as well. She does seem skeptical of the ability of the vaccines to prevent infection by newer variants. To some degree, that's probably true right?
I can't address your speculation or prove a negative, I can prove she endorsed or said those things.
It's in the wikipedia article linked by the GP. To help you out -
In September 2021, concerning COVID-19, she tweeted an article by Glenn Greenwald which argued that proof of a negative test is far more meaningful than proof of a vaccine, contradicting experts who argue that testing is insufficient and should be considered temporary to allow more time for vaccine hesitancy issues to be addressed.
Assuming she hasn't deleted her tweet:
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1440687368957095940
She said she was like Galileo here: https://www.ft.com/content/5d840a5c-fa0c-4d08-9574-59f0d3e8c...
It's in the wikipedia article linked by the GP. To help you out -
In September 2021, concerning COVID-19, she tweeted an article by Glenn Greenwald which argued that proof of a negative test is far more meaningful than proof of a vaccine, contradicting experts who argue that testing is insufficient and should be considered temporary to allow more time for vaccine hesitancy issues to be addressed.
Assuming she hasn't deleted her tweet:
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1440687368957095940
She said she was like Galileo here: https://www.ft.com/content/5d840a5c-fa0c-4d08-9574-59f0d3e8c...
This was in the context of vaccine passports for entry into public places, not in general. The original comment removes that very important context. I have literally heard her advocate getting vaccinated, she’s on the record recommending it.
[deleted]
Your twisting of what she said is par for the course for religious zealots.
If you want people interacting with other people without tranmitting COVID, what she is is absolutely correct. She said that proving you’re currently negative is more accurate that just asking for vaccine status. This is scientifically correct since people can get reinfected and spread the disease regardless of vaccine status. I just got reinfected with COVID this past week after 3 shots plus prior infection in January. So vaccines do NOTHING in terms of preventing infection anymore. Of course, it protects from serious symptoms but that’s not what they were talking about. It was in the context of effectiveness of vaccine mandates for preventing spread, which it doesn’t.
You are the one spreading disinformation at this point.
If you want people interacting with other people without tranmitting COVID, what she is is absolutely correct. She said that proving you’re currently negative is more accurate that just asking for vaccine status. This is scientifically correct since people can get reinfected and spread the disease regardless of vaccine status. I just got reinfected with COVID this past week after 3 shots plus prior infection in January. So vaccines do NOTHING in terms of preventing infection anymore. Of course, it protects from serious symptoms but that’s not what they were talking about. It was in the context of effectiveness of vaccine mandates for preventing spread, which it doesn’t.
You are the one spreading disinformation at this point.
> Your twisting of what she said is par for the course for religious zealots.
> You are the one spreading disinformation
Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are, so please don't do that.
Your comment would be much better without those bits.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> You are the one spreading disinformation
Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are, so please don't do that.
Your comment would be much better without those bits.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jonstewart(1)
cm2187(3)
beloch(1)
mmmpetrichor(3)
jnash(1)
puffoflogic(1)
spoonjim(3)
mritun(1)
KerrAvon(1)
The problem is that the people making these decisions are terrified. Indeed, the people who ought to have made the most careful study of COVID, act most terrified of it. So, either the terror is the result of careful, inadequately disclosed study of the virus, or these agencies are unable to curb the desperation of voters and politicians to do something, anything to protect themselves and their loved ones from something that was seriously overhyped from the start.
that is certainly an interesting imagined reality
Sure, let's critically evaluate the guidance put forward by our public health institutions, but quoting a statement from Norway's equivalent institution without the backing evidence doesn't make the US "wrong". If the evidence available on the efficacy of vaccines for kids is so ridiculously wide that it goes from -99% to +370% risk of infection, then surely Norway is _also_ drastically overstating its case when it says (about kids) "previous infection offers as good of protection as the vaccine against reinfection" esp since it _also_ seems like the protective effect of prior infection is both uncertain and changing.
How about flatly declaring that guidance was "wrong" about school closures because minority and poor kids did markedly worse at math? Obviously these decisions are complex trade-offs, and one can't conclude that the choice was "wrong" simply by pointing out one of the costs.
How about quoting a CDC scientist, who cannot possibly have strong evidence when making the prediction "CDC guidance worsened racial equity for generations to come. It failed this generation of children." Generations to come? Show us the data that lets this scientist predict the far future with such confidence.
I get that it's deeply unnerving when these institutions make sweeping recommendations based on less firm data than we would normally demand. But not recommending anything, or not taking decisive action because of the limited data would _also_ have been irresponsible. When schools first closed, we didn't know a lot of things, but it would have been pretty reckless if agencies said "well this is putting a lot of people in the hospital and spreading fast, but we don't have the data to give definitive guidance yet, so you're on your own. Depending on the range of things your communities choose, maybe in a few months we'll have the evidence to say something."