Why Covid-19 Is Here to Stay, and Why You Shouldn't Worry About It(cspicenter.org)
cspicenter.org
Why Covid-19 Is Here to Stay, and Why You Shouldn't Worry About It
https://cspicenter.org/blog/waronscience/why-covid-19-is-here-to-stay-and-why-you-shouldnt-worry-about-it/
58 comments
What do you think we would find if we repeated the same research for patients who had been infected with influenza, RSV, coxsackievirus, mononucleosis, HCoV-OC43, etc.?
This isn't totally surprising and has been studied previously with other respiratory illnesses. [1] There is also a correlation with severity of symptoms as shown in this paper and other cited sources. I'm not going to speculate too much, but one would hope that as severe cases decline, so too should these cases of "long covid".
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31718695/
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31718695/
I have two friends under 40 on beta blockers due to long haul Covid-19 symptoms. Another friend who had a stroke after infection. Lots of other less serious long terms affects among friends and family. My sense of smell is still broken a year and a half after recovery.
I agree it's not getting nearly as much attention as it should in policy discussions (which the linked piece essentially is). Too much is focused on infection per se, hospitalization, and death, as if those are the only three outcomes to care about.
Do we know if this is different than people hospitalized with other viruses? It’s just common sense that if you get a serious illness there can be long term effects.
Are there any studies yet that say something about the risks of long covid when vaccinated?
Not much but one in Israel followed 1,497 fully vaccinated health care workers. 39 got covid, 7 had symptoms 6 weeks in.
Florida took the approach of "people will get it. (shrugs)" and look what happened. LC has been associated with permanent organ damage. I think that's a reason to worry because of the disability adjusted life years (DALY) involved.
Nearly two years into the pandemic, and it’s still difficult for a layman to get credible information beyond the basics.
I read the whole article and it seems convincing to me, but does it reflect the scientific consensus? The author does not seem to have any scientific credentials, and the site seems to have a specific agenda - which does not necessarily disqualify the content immediately.
Does anyone have links to more credible sites supporting or denying the claims made in the article?
I read the whole article and it seems convincing to me, but does it reflect the scientific consensus? The author does not seem to have any scientific credentials, and the site seems to have a specific agenda - which does not necessarily disqualify the content immediately.
Does anyone have links to more credible sites supporting or denying the claims made in the article?
There is no scientific consensus. It's a moving target and science is too slow.
> links to more credible sites supporting or denying the claims made in the article?
There were a lot of claims made - which claims are you interested in?
There is growing scientific consensus that naturally infected individuals who recover will acquire robust and durable immunity [1][2][3][4].
> new people are going to get born who are completely susceptible because they have never been infected yet and won’t be vaccinated
This claim stuck out to me as especially unsupported, hinting at the authors lack of expertise in this area. Here are several publications supporting the fact that infection and immunity can be passed from mother to child in utero [5][6][7].
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[2] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37...
[3] Antibody Responses 8 Months after Asymptomatic or Mild SARS-CoV-2 Infection https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7920668/
[4] Naturally enhanced neutralizing breadth against SARS-CoV-2 one year after infection https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03696-9
[5] Efficient maternal to neonatal transfer of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine https://www.jci.org/articles/view/150319
[6] Possible Vertical Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 From an Infected Mother to Her Newborn https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763853
[7] Compromised SARS-CoV-2-specific placental antibody transfer https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286742...
There were a lot of claims made - which claims are you interested in?
There is growing scientific consensus that naturally infected individuals who recover will acquire robust and durable immunity [1][2][3][4].
> new people are going to get born who are completely susceptible because they have never been infected yet and won’t be vaccinated
This claim stuck out to me as especially unsupported, hinting at the authors lack of expertise in this area. Here are several publications supporting the fact that infection and immunity can be passed from mother to child in utero [5][6][7].
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[2] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37...
[3] Antibody Responses 8 Months after Asymptomatic or Mild SARS-CoV-2 Infection https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7920668/
[4] Naturally enhanced neutralizing breadth against SARS-CoV-2 one year after infection https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03696-9
[5] Efficient maternal to neonatal transfer of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine https://www.jci.org/articles/view/150319
[6] Possible Vertical Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 From an Infected Mother to Her Newborn https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763853
[7] Compromised SARS-CoV-2-specific placental antibody transfer https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009286742...
The crux of the article is that variants are no cause for concern, and that the virus will become “endemic” and mostly harmless within a few years, by which time the majority of the population will have gained immunity.
According to the author, the immunity gained through either contracting the virus or getting vaccinated will not necessarily be long-lived, but the protection against complications will, regardless of variants.
According to the author, the immunity gained through either contracting the virus or getting vaccinated will not necessarily be long-lived, but the protection against complications will, regardless of variants.
That's how it worked for the four previous ones that have long been in widespread human circulation and are responsible for about 20% of common colds (the other 80% are caused by several other kinds of viruses).
Immunity against infection from any of those coronaviruses doesn't last long, but protection against serious illness or death lasts longer so that when you get the same virus again in a year or two it isn't bad.
We now pretty much all get those four for the first time when we are children, and children are generally quite good at avoiding serious illness and death from them, so that first infection is not too bad.
Many researchers believe that the when these first showed up in humans and so there was a large adult population encountering them for the first time they probably did cause pandemics with widespread serious illness and death.
In the best case, COVID will be like that. We go from four coronaviruses that cause common colds that are annoying but rarely serious to five coronavirus that do so.
In the not as good case, it ends up like the flu. Generally quite a bit more annoying in most cases and in a few tens of thousands a year fatal. Maybe we also end up needing an annual vaccine booster shot for it like we do for flu.
There was an interesting article in The Atlantic today covering much of this [1].
PS: if you hit the paywall at the Atlantic but have an iOS device with Apple News+, open the link on that device and then hit the "share" icon and share with News+. The Atlantic is part of News+ and much of their paywalled content is included in News+. Same goes for the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/how-we-l...
Immunity against infection from any of those coronaviruses doesn't last long, but protection against serious illness or death lasts longer so that when you get the same virus again in a year or two it isn't bad.
We now pretty much all get those four for the first time when we are children, and children are generally quite good at avoiding serious illness and death from them, so that first infection is not too bad.
Many researchers believe that the when these first showed up in humans and so there was a large adult population encountering them for the first time they probably did cause pandemics with widespread serious illness and death.
In the best case, COVID will be like that. We go from four coronaviruses that cause common colds that are annoying but rarely serious to five coronavirus that do so.
In the not as good case, it ends up like the flu. Generally quite a bit more annoying in most cases and in a few tens of thousands a year fatal. Maybe we also end up needing an annual vaccine booster shot for it like we do for flu.
There was an interesting article in The Atlantic today covering much of this [1].
PS: if you hit the paywall at the Atlantic but have an iOS device with Apple News+, open the link on that device and then hit the "share" icon and share with News+. The Atlantic is part of News+ and much of their paywalled content is included in News+. Same goes for the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/08/how-we-l...
Thanks, that is essentially how I understood the article, except the author errs on the side of optimism, especially in the short term.
As the other commenter said, the science is still a moving target. Any article making these types of predictions should still probably be taken with a grain of salt.
As the other commenter said, the science is still a moving target. Any article making these types of predictions should still probably be taken with a grain of salt.
Antibodies can be passed from mother to child but they will last limited time only. The child's adaptive immune system will need to be challenged with antigens (virus or vaccine) to get more permanent immunity.
An article about covid that isn't filled with doom and gloom? What a nice break. While I think the author is right, what I fear is that the media will continue to freak out about every new variant and every new spike in cases leading to this weird state where it's not that bad, but everyone thinks it's getting worse.
The media freaking out is because they get payed to freak you out. Not only will you watch what they are saying - you will also be more open to getting the vaccine.
The reason it’s so upbeat, is it is written by a phd candidate (in philosophy, not epidemiology) for a “think tank” called The Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology.
That think tank publishes gems like “colleges and universities are hostile to conservatives”, and has pushed back against COVID-19 mitigation efforts in the past. Not to be trusted.
That think tank publishes gems like “colleges and universities are hostile to conservatives”, and has pushed back against COVID-19 mitigation efforts in the past. Not to be trusted.
This is probably what happened with another similar coronavirus, HCoV-OC43.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7252012/
The initial pandemic killed a lot of people. Now most of us get infected when we're young and build up natural immunity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7252012/
The initial pandemic killed a lot of people. Now most of us get infected when we're young and build up natural immunity.
How long does covid immunity after natural infection last?
there is evidence that Tcell based immunity remains for more than a decade [i.e 17 years] as evidenced by competent immune response of sars survivors when challenged by sars2 [covid19]
the real concern should be the inverse of your question, ie how long does it take for the sars2 to generate variants that will escape a contemporary vaccine.
there are other considerations such as the neutralizing antibody criterion . there is a sweet spot of prophylactic vaccination; a span of time exists post innocuum where neutralizing antibodies are at the greatest titre and the best chance of destroying a viral agent before infection can occur will exist. this is a good bullseye to aim for, however unreasonable to expect high degree of accuracy or timing regarding titre and pathogenic challenge.
the thing with non-neutralizing antibodies are that they are lables flagging a foriegn antigen these are referred to as opsonising antibodies and lable antigens for phagocytosis by macrophages.
roughly 6-8 months is the official endorsement regarding duration of naturally aquired immunity; this is probably somewhat longer in duration however the virus changes quickly; at this point one should expect roughly 12 monthes before "boosting" is absolutely required. I suspect arbitrarily that boosting will soon succumb to a reformulation in order to match vaccine closely to novel viral epitopes.
this is the same sort of dynamic that "the cold" follows, thats why we always catch it often very mild sometimes very bad due to variation of previous challenger, and cesation of antibody production.
[adndm] here is a short piece regarding the above:
https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2021/august/...
https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3
the real concern should be the inverse of your question, ie how long does it take for the sars2 to generate variants that will escape a contemporary vaccine.
there are other considerations such as the neutralizing antibody criterion . there is a sweet spot of prophylactic vaccination; a span of time exists post innocuum where neutralizing antibodies are at the greatest titre and the best chance of destroying a viral agent before infection can occur will exist. this is a good bullseye to aim for, however unreasonable to expect high degree of accuracy or timing regarding titre and pathogenic challenge.
the thing with non-neutralizing antibodies are that they are lables flagging a foriegn antigen these are referred to as opsonising antibodies and lable antigens for phagocytosis by macrophages.
roughly 6-8 months is the official endorsement regarding duration of naturally aquired immunity; this is probably somewhat longer in duration however the virus changes quickly; at this point one should expect roughly 12 monthes before "boosting" is absolutely required. I suspect arbitrarily that boosting will soon succumb to a reformulation in order to match vaccine closely to novel viral epitopes.
this is the same sort of dynamic that "the cold" follows, thats why we always catch it often very mild sometimes very bad due to variation of previous challenger, and cesation of antibody production.
[adndm] here is a short piece regarding the above:
https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2021/august/...
https://www.cell.com/immunity/fulltext/S1074-7613(21)00308-3
Probably for life and that includes variants as well. See https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31008-4
What do we know about this source? It seems like a new organization that's under a year old with a name - CSPI (Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology) - confusingly similar to the existing CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) that's been around since 1971.
It seems to have some biases in their blog. And in their 2nd area of interest "2. The Great Awokening - In the last decade, white liberals in America have shifted far to the left on issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation."
It seems to have some biases in their blog. And in their 2nd area of interest "2. The Great Awokening - In the last decade, white liberals in America have shifted far to the left on issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation."
> At the moment, many people want to vaccinate their kids, but I doubt it will still be the case in a few years when the panic induced by the pandemic has subsided and people have realized that SARS-CoV-2 is harmless to children.
Except, SARS-CoV-2 is not harmless to children. I think it will become a common seasonal vaccine for kids, just like the flu vaccine.
Except, SARS-CoV-2 is not harmless to children. I think it will become a common seasonal vaccine for kids, just like the flu vaccine.
[deleted]
the article submitted reflects a paucity of knowledge regarding the Coronavirus
It is artificially created virus. It is not difficult
to create another. New pandemic will be every decade.
[deleted]
While I don't think this necessarily affects the conclusions, this source is kind of brazenly ideologically-driven. From their home page https://cspicenter.org/ :
> 3. Safetyism
> The sacralization of physical and emotional safety is a worrying trend. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw the inability of public health officials to consider the tradeoffs between physical safety and personal freedom.
> Progress in science and technology is impossible without physical risk. Progress in ethics and politics is impossible without emotional risk. Yet, society and government seem to be becoming more risk-averse.
> CSPI welcomes work investigating the origins, nature, and effects of safetyism. We are also interested in policies and practices that reduce risk aversion or encourage better cost-benefit analysis.
That is - they are taking as a given that people are being too risk-averse, especially in regards to COVID-19, and that public health officials are unable to consider tradeoffs (as opposed to having considered them and reached a different conclusion), and they want "better," by which they mean riskier, cost-benefit analyses.
(It also makes me think that the point about it being difficult to vaccinate everyone is a bit disingenuous - it's true that it's difficult, but it would be easier if there weren't political organizations arguing for political reasons that we shouldn't vaccinate everyone!)
> 3. Safetyism
> The sacralization of physical and emotional safety is a worrying trend. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we saw the inability of public health officials to consider the tradeoffs between physical safety and personal freedom.
> Progress in science and technology is impossible without physical risk. Progress in ethics and politics is impossible without emotional risk. Yet, society and government seem to be becoming more risk-averse.
> CSPI welcomes work investigating the origins, nature, and effects of safetyism. We are also interested in policies and practices that reduce risk aversion or encourage better cost-benefit analysis.
That is - they are taking as a given that people are being too risk-averse, especially in regards to COVID-19, and that public health officials are unable to consider tradeoffs (as opposed to having considered them and reached a different conclusion), and they want "better," by which they mean riskier, cost-benefit analyses.
(It also makes me think that the point about it being difficult to vaccinate everyone is a bit disingenuous - it's true that it's difficult, but it would be easier if there weren't political organizations arguing for political reasons that we shouldn't vaccinate everyone!)
> That is - they are taking as a given that people are being too risk-averse, especially in regards to COVID-19, and that public health officials are unable to consider tradeoffs (as opposed to having considered them and reached a different conclusion), and they want "better," by which they mean riskier, cost-benefit analyses.
Australia locked down for three deaths, so I think they are right here.
> (It also makes me think that the point about it being difficult to vaccinate everyone is a bit disingenuous - it's true that it's difficult, but it would be easier if there weren't political organizations arguing for political reasons that we shouldn't vaccinate everyone!)
It's funny you say that, but really, there are just a lot of people that don't want to get any of the vaccines, myself included. That's because, with a thought cost-benefit analysis, it did not make sense for me.
Making that decision for myself is only a problem because of Safetyism.
The funny thing is that once physical and emotional safety is sacred, the government can get away with all sorts of actions that would not be acceptable otherwise, actions that might actually compromise the safety of individuals from the government itself!
And then we are not really safe.
Australia locked down for three deaths, so I think they are right here.
> (It also makes me think that the point about it being difficult to vaccinate everyone is a bit disingenuous - it's true that it's difficult, but it would be easier if there weren't political organizations arguing for political reasons that we shouldn't vaccinate everyone!)
It's funny you say that, but really, there are just a lot of people that don't want to get any of the vaccines, myself included. That's because, with a thought cost-benefit analysis, it did not make sense for me.
Making that decision for myself is only a problem because of Safetyism.
The funny thing is that once physical and emotional safety is sacred, the government can get away with all sorts of actions that would not be acceptable otherwise, actions that might actually compromise the safety of individuals from the government itself!
And then we are not really safe.
>And then we are not really safe.
Once you have found yourself in a mental spiderweb where everything that promises safety is actually unsafe, you can break out very simply, although maybe not easily.
Just tell yourself that if nothing is safe, then your entire analysis is irrelevant and you can simply follow the herd and get on with your life.
This is, seriously, a coping mechanism for people who are clinically paranoid and aware of it.
Once you have found yourself in a mental spiderweb where everything that promises safety is actually unsafe, you can break out very simply, although maybe not easily.
Just tell yourself that if nothing is safe, then your entire analysis is irrelevant and you can simply follow the herd and get on with your life.
This is, seriously, a coping mechanism for people who are clinically paranoid and aware of it.
This assumes a binary world of safe and unsafe. If jumping off tall bridges provided a protective effect against death from lightning strikes, by the same reasoning we should jump off the bridge because nothing is safe.
Safety is probability-based and thus continuous. We can reason about one action being less unsafe than something else, so the analysis is still relevant.
Safety is probability-based and thus continuous. We can reason about one action being less unsafe than something else, so the analysis is still relevant.
>This assumes a binary world of safe and unsafe
I replied to a comment that ended with "we are not really safe".
That is not a quantitative statement. It seems indicative of a binary view to me, the comment about a cost-benefit analysis notwithstanding.
I replied to a comment that ended with "we are not really safe".
That is not a quantitative statement. It seems indicative of a binary view to me, the comment about a cost-benefit analysis notwithstanding.
To be frank, I think that it is more important to be safe from a government, which can decide what is legal for them to do to you, than it is to be safe from a virus that does not discriminate.
You can rise up against a government with weapons. You cannot rise up against a virus with weapons.
Therefore, it is more important to take proactive measures against a malicious virus. Both can threaten life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but you have more reactive options against the government (provided that the right to bear arms is not infringed, of course!).
Therefore, it is more important to take proactive measures against a malicious virus. Both can threaten life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but you have more reactive options against the government (provided that the right to bear arms is not infringed, of course!).
> It's funny you say that, but really, there are just a lot of people that don't want to get any of the vaccines, myself included. That's because, with a thought cost-benefit analysis, it did not make sense for me.
Honestly, the US has met the number of vaccinated people I expected to see, even ignoring any cost-benefit analysis of the specific vaccines available. When I looked at other vaccination rates in the US before the COVID vaccine rollouts, I expected the COVID vaccination rate to meet somewhere in the 50% to 70% range at the end of everything. I don't know what the target goal was for whoever in the government tracks this, or what the public was expecting, but I was expecting the 60%-70% range to be the end goal. Right now we're at 60% at least one dose, 50% full vaccination.
Honestly, the US has met the number of vaccinated people I expected to see, even ignoring any cost-benefit analysis of the specific vaccines available. When I looked at other vaccination rates in the US before the COVID vaccine rollouts, I expected the COVID vaccination rate to meet somewhere in the 50% to 70% range at the end of everything. I don't know what the target goal was for whoever in the government tracks this, or what the public was expecting, but I was expecting the 60%-70% range to be the end goal. Right now we're at 60% at least one dose, 50% full vaccination.
The government was hoping to hit 70% quickly, and then work its way up to 80-90%.
70% was their notional "herd immunity" number. It didn't have a really firm scientific grounding, but it was a useful target. They were hoping that people would get behind pushing it up to that number without coaxing, and then a combination of momentum and coaxing would push it well past.
They assumed that perhaps 10-20% would be just plain ornery about it, but given the hundreds of thousands of deaths, most would err on the side of getting it. That assumes it was generally seen as safe and effective, which means that they see lots of people getting it and contrasting that with the vast numbers of people dying.
Those assumptions turned out to be faulty, for a number of reasons. And that has caused them to flounder for alternative messaging.
70% was their notional "herd immunity" number. It didn't have a really firm scientific grounding, but it was a useful target. They were hoping that people would get behind pushing it up to that number without coaxing, and then a combination of momentum and coaxing would push it well past.
They assumed that perhaps 10-20% would be just plain ornery about it, but given the hundreds of thousands of deaths, most would err on the side of getting it. That assumes it was generally seen as safe and effective, which means that they see lots of people getting it and contrasting that with the vast numbers of people dying.
Those assumptions turned out to be faulty, for a number of reasons. And that has caused them to flounder for alternative messaging.
>that has caused them to flounder for alternative messaging
Is there any precedent for anybody predicting the evolution of a pathogen like this in detail, in advance?
This is just such a weird thing to trigger people, from my perspective. And so was Fauci's early comments on masks.
Is there any precedent for anybody predicting the evolution of a pathogen like this in detail, in advance?
This is just such a weird thing to trigger people, from my perspective. And so was Fauci's early comments on masks.
It's entirely about long-standing culture wars, not epidemiology. In that it's rather predictable, albeit disappointing.
The recent uptick in vaccinations coincides with a partial reversal of tactic by one of the most prominent ideological media sources, and maybe that will push us to the magical but arbitrary 70%. What happens then is anybody's guess.
The recent uptick in vaccinations coincides with a partial reversal of tactic by one of the most prominent ideological media sources, and maybe that will push us to the magical but arbitrary 70%. What happens then is anybody's guess.
It makes no sense to take that vaccine to me. But I'm watching the absolute majority go and inject it into their bodies.
You both raise an interesting point - the most common reason cited for not getting the vaccine is safety. People say that it hasn't been tested, that we don't know what it does, that people "shed the spike protein," etc.
Which I think reinforces my point about the bias of this source, actually: if they were genuinely worried about "safetyism," they would be interested in trying to figure out why so many otherwise-well-adjusted adults seem afraid to take this vaccine, afraid of other people "shedding," afraid of attacks on civil liberties if they wear a mask, afraid that businesses will go under, afraid of a New Normal, and so forth. They would be asking how to make people less afraid of all these things; as they say, progress is impossible without physical or emotional risk.
But they have concluded, a priori, that the problem is public health officials being too "safetyist," and they're interested only in research that supports that conclusion.
I do, actually, think both of you should be prohibited from participating in society if you refuse to take the vaccine, and I think that this position is at least as justifiable as anything CSPI believes. I do think that both of you are making bad cost-benefit analyses in refusing to take the vaccine, and this is a problem for society that should be fixed.
Which I think reinforces my point about the bias of this source, actually: if they were genuinely worried about "safetyism," they would be interested in trying to figure out why so many otherwise-well-adjusted adults seem afraid to take this vaccine, afraid of other people "shedding," afraid of attacks on civil liberties if they wear a mask, afraid that businesses will go under, afraid of a New Normal, and so forth. They would be asking how to make people less afraid of all these things; as they say, progress is impossible without physical or emotional risk.
But they have concluded, a priori, that the problem is public health officials being too "safetyist," and they're interested only in research that supports that conclusion.
I do, actually, think both of you should be prohibited from participating in society if you refuse to take the vaccine, and I think that this position is at least as justifiable as anything CSPI believes. I do think that both of you are making bad cost-benefit analyses in refusing to take the vaccine, and this is a problem for society that should be fixed.
> ...and this is a problem for society that should be fixed.
Yikes! So you now refer to people you disagree with as problems that society must fix?
What about if I get the vaccine and then suffer an adverse reaction that must be paid for by society (the government)? Does that not affect society either? Should we fix that problem?
Here's why you are wrong:
* COVID hardly kills.
* New Zealand just announced that they are locking down over one case of COVID.
* The vaccines are losing effectiveness.
* Vaccinated people can still spread the virus.
To be honest with you, believing that people who make bad cost-benefit analyses should be prohibited from participating in society is an argument for the War on Drugs. Do you like the War on Drugs? I don't.
Yikes! So you now refer to people you disagree with as problems that society must fix?
What about if I get the vaccine and then suffer an adverse reaction that must be paid for by society (the government)? Does that not affect society either? Should we fix that problem?
Here's why you are wrong:
* COVID hardly kills.
* New Zealand just announced that they are locking down over one case of COVID.
* The vaccines are losing effectiveness.
* Vaccinated people can still spread the virus.
To be honest with you, believing that people who make bad cost-benefit analyses should be prohibited from participating in society is an argument for the War on Drugs. Do you like the War on Drugs? I don't.
> Covid hardly kills
Can we stop with the blatant falsehoods? In the US it was the third leading cause of death. It was over 10% of all deaths.
The only way this “hardly” kills is if you twist the definition of hardly so badly that nothing meets that bar
Can we stop with the blatant falsehoods? In the US it was the third leading cause of death. It was over 10% of all deaths.
The only way this “hardly” kills is if you twist the definition of hardly so badly that nothing meets that bar
> The only way this “hardly” kills is if you twist the definition of hardly so badly that nothing meets that bar
How about ratio of cases to deaths? That's what I meant.
Obesity hardly kills by my definition, but kills a lot by yours.
How about ratio of cases to deaths? That's what I meant.
Obesity hardly kills by my definition, but kills a lot by yours.
The CDC estimates that the ratio of cases to deaths is about 156 to 1 since the start of the pandemic. The ratio is now dramatically better for vaccinated patients who are far less likely to die if they do get infected.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
> It was over 10% of all deaths.
With vaccines it will be less than 1% which is not much. Yearly variations can be easily 10% for any other cause.
With vaccines it will be less than 1% which is not much. Yearly variations can be easily 10% for any other cause.
I said "this," not "you." I believe that the decision you made is a problem for society. I am no more referring to people I disagree with as a problem than CSPI is referring to the public health officials as people as a problem. They're calling the decisions by those officials a problem. If you think that is tantamount to calling the people themselves a problem, then please be fair and apply your criticism to CSPI as well as myself.
I believe that if you suffer an adverse reaction, it should be paid for by society/the government, and that's a good thing (e.g., it incentivizes the government not to mandate vaccines that are likely to cause adverse reactions). The vaccine "hardly" causes adverse reactions, in at least a strong a sense of "hardly" as you are using it.
I do not believe that people who are taking drugs are making bad cost/benefit analyses, so I do not agree with your conclusion about the War on Drugs because I reject the premise.
I believe that if you suffer an adverse reaction, it should be paid for by society/the government, and that's a good thing (e.g., it incentivizes the government not to mandate vaccines that are likely to cause adverse reactions). The vaccine "hardly" causes adverse reactions, in at least a strong a sense of "hardly" as you are using it.
I do not believe that people who are taking drugs are making bad cost/benefit analyses, so I do not agree with your conclusion about the War on Drugs because I reject the premise.
> I do not believe that people who are taking drugs are making bad cost/benefit analyses, so I do not agree with your conclusion about the War on Drugs because I reject the premise.
And I reject the premise that I made a bad cost-benefit analysis for the vaccine. If you decide that I did, who gets to decide what's good for society? If you desire the option to take drugs, why can't I have the option of not taking a drug that I don't want?
And I reject the premise that I made a bad cost-benefit analysis for the vaccine. If you decide that I did, who gets to decide what's good for society? If you desire the option to take drugs, why can't I have the option of not taking a drug that I don't want?
On safetyism in general I really like the "safety third" post by Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs fame. People who criticize safety culture get harshly shamed as immoral and irresponsible, but in reality there are always trade-offs to consider. We should keep our minds open and not assume that contrarian statements are ideologically driven.
https://mikerowe.com/2020/03/walk-me-through-this-safety-thi...
https://mikerowe.com/2020/03/walk-me-through-this-safety-thi...
An important thing to keep in mind with the "safety third" idea is also the distinction between true safety and low liability. A lot of "safety culture" is composed of things like checklists and hazard warnings which are more geared towards shifting the blame for accidents onto somebody else than actually preventing those accidents, and that many people saying safety is a top priority are just going through the motions. The major impetus for Mike Rowes' safety third thing was when a member of his camera crew, despite the many safety procedures in place, was horrifically crushed to death. It's not so much that people should be less risk averse, but rather that our judgements should be made based on efficacy instead of emotion. I disagree with Mike Rowe on a lot of things, but people often unfairly malign his stance to be opposed to safety when really it's the opposite, and I think that's a disservice to healthy discussion.
Which member of the camera crew was crushed to death? I've seen most of the Dirty Jobs episodes and don't recall that accident.
https://www.ishn.com/articles/93505--dirty-jobs--guy-says-sa...
> The job sites were no more dangerous than they’d always been, but the mishaps among my crew were skyrocketing. Then one day, a man was killed while we were shooting in a factory near Pittsburg. He was crushed by the door on a giant coke oven. In the break room, where I was told of the accident, a large banner said, “We Care About Your Safety!” That got me thinking about things like unintended consequences, and the dangers of confusing compliance with real safety.
My mistake, it does not explicitly state they were a member of the camera crew
> The job sites were no more dangerous than they’d always been, but the mishaps among my crew were skyrocketing. Then one day, a man was killed while we were shooting in a factory near Pittsburg. He was crushed by the door on a giant coke oven. In the break room, where I was told of the accident, a large banner said, “We Care About Your Safety!” That got me thinking about things like unintended consequences, and the dangers of confusing compliance with real safety.
My mistake, it does not explicitly state they were a member of the camera crew
> A lot of "safety culture" is composed of things like checklists and hazard warnings which are more geared towards shifting the blame for accidents onto somebody else than actually preventing those accidents
While there are sometimes misalignments, those things are effective ar shifting emotional ans legal blame elsewhere because they are perceived (and, at least in a stunningly wide range of fields, this is supported by massive empirical evidence for checklists) as being very effective at preventing avoidable accidents.
While there are sometimes misalignments, those things are effective ar shifting emotional ans legal blame elsewhere because they are perceived (and, at least in a stunningly wide range of fields, this is supported by massive empirical evidence for checklists) as being very effective at preventing avoidable accidents.
No one’s saying they can’t be useful, the problem is that a lot of people don’t take the time to verify that they actually are well implemented and achieving their intended goals, which often gives people a sense of false confidence about how safe an environment actually is. The argument is that safety is a lens for looking at a situation, not a task to be completed. It doesn’t matter how many accidents you’ve avoided, people still need to be vigilant.
It's not either or.
The corporation, itself, is legal technology to diffuse and shift (emotional, legal) blame for all sorts of bad things that may happen in a business.
The corporation, itself, is legal technology to diffuse and shift (emotional, legal) blame for all sorts of bad things that may happen in a business.
It took me a minute to realize that this is not the Center for Science in the Public Interest -- a group they would almost certainly accuse of "safetyism".
This is the "Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology", whose web site I can't read at the moment. But it does sound suspiciously like a partisan, ideological group that adopts a fake neutral name.
This is the "Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology", whose web site I can't read at the moment. But it does sound suspiciously like a partisan, ideological group that adopts a fake neutral name.
> People who had recovered from COVID-19, including those no longer reporting symptoms, exhibited significant cognitive deficits versus controls when controlling for age, gender, education level, income, racial-ethnic group, pre-existing medical disorders, tiredness, depression and anxiety. The deficits were of substantial effect size for people who had been hospitalised (N = 192), but also for non-hospitalised cases who had biological confirmation of COVID-19 infection (N = 326). Analysing markers of premorbid intelligence did not support these differences being present prior to infection. Finer grained analysis of performance across sub-tests supported the hypothesis that COVID-19 has a multi-domain impact on human cognition.