Vaccine

[Grace T.]

...and you repeat them. For what purpose?

It's interesting...FDA officials don't tend to resign out of the blue (let alone in pairs) and this type of thing has really only moved towards normalization in the last 2 administrations. What's even more interesting is it contrasts with some generals which now that the mission is over should have resigned or been fired but so far haven't been.

Yeah, I know, it's much more interesting to speculate why Messi left Barcelona or why Ronaldo went to Manchester or whether De Gea is going to stay No.1

 

[watfly]

They know. They see opposition to western ideology as profit. Nothing makes more money than intervention.

I'm cynical of our government, but I'm just not there yet.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

This is one of the larger consequences, and, almost certainly, intents, of the infodemic. To create an information space where there is no rational way to arbitrate one statement or position from another. At that point, any data driven assessment or quantitative metric can be used as just another weapon in a political dynamic that amplifies division, chips away common ground. For example, in the 1918 flu pandemic masks had their vocal proponents and opponents, just like today. But those positions weren't as overtly political as they are now. So why the difference? Disinformation is probably as old as warfare. But the new tools offer new means of execution. Research link => over-simplistic summary without context, a snippet, a fragment => policy statement => diametrically opposed political positions. My link against your link. Sound familiar? Likely just a warm up. Media mouthpiece R puts up one election map, media mouthpiece D puts up a different one. Who's to say which one is right and which one is wrong?

At the end of the day guns determine what is right.

 

[Grace T.]

This is one of the larger consequences, and, almost certainly, intents, of the infodemic. To create an information space where there is no rational way to arbitrate one statement or position from another. At that point, any data driven assessment or quantitative metric can be used as just another weapon in a political dynamic that amplifies division, chips away common ground. For example, in the 1918 flu pandemic masks had their vocal proponents and opponents, just like today. But those positions weren't as overtly political as they are now. So why the difference? Disinformation is probably as old as warfare. But the new tools offer new means of execution. Research link => over-simplistic summary without context, a snippet, a fragment => policy statement => diametrically opposed political positions. My link against your link. Sound familiar? Likely just a warm up. Media mouthpiece R puts up one election map, media mouthpiece D puts up a different one. Who's to say which one is right and which one is wrong?

I like the third approach. It's been blindly trust the experts v. think for yourself. You are proposing there's no reasonable way to get to "truth". What consequences flow from there? You made me think.

It was the US's great misfortune to have this caught up in an election year. Remember the historical context: Trump may very well have believed a minimalist approach was the right way to go, but he was also enormously self interested in trying to right the economy and make this go away (or at least with the promise to make it go away, with the vaccines) before the election. The left was determined to do what it took to get him out of office, since in their mind he was a threat almost as large or larger than COVID (depending on who you spoke to). Throw in the blatant political bias of the media and certain health officers (remember the pass some of them gave the BLM protests but not the churches?). Then add fundamental issues about freedom, health and safety. Realize that we have a federal system of government with Trump unable to tell California to open up, or Biden unable to order Florida to mask up. Finally, throw in a healthy dose of panic, fueled by the media, and it was always going to be a shit show.

Our form of government, in the current political age (where red and blue disagree fundamentally about even the way the world operates), just simply isn't made for this.

 

[espola]

I like the third approach. It's been blindly trust the experts v. think for yourself. You are proposing there's no reasonable way to get to "truth". What consequences flow from there? You made me think.

It was the US's great misfortune to have this caught up in an election year. Remember the historical context: Trump may very well have believed a minimalist approach was the right way to go, but he was also enormously self interested in trying to right the economy and make this go away (or at least with the promise to make it go away, with the vaccines) before the election. The left was determined to do what it took to get him out of office, since in their mind he was a threat almost as large or larger than COVID (depending on who you spoke to). Throw in the blatant political bias of the media and certain health officers (remember the pass some of them gave the BLM protests but not the churches?). Then add fundamental issues about freedom, health and safety. Realize that we have a federal system of government with Trump unable to tell California to open up, or Biden unable to order Florida to mask up. Finally, throw in a healthy dose of panic, fueled by the media, and it was always going to be a shit show.

Our form of government, in the current political age (where red and blue disagree fundamentally about even the way the world operates), just simply isn't made for this.

You're babbling.

 

[Grace T.]

You're babbling.

"Oh Magoo, you've done it again!"....my favorite part is when you yell "Roadhog!"

 

[Grace T.]

A very good summary by Dr. John Campbell of the European scientific thinking on where COVID is right now. It's very different than the US approach. Basically Europe is coming around to the idea that herd immunity is impossible and we need to stop mass testing....debate still ranging over boosters v. natural immunity....children probably don't need vaccines mandated.

 

[dad4]

Well there is nothing we can do about the first line. There is no guarantee that people follow messaging whether it's my preferred messaging or yours. So that's not a valid criticism, just reality regardless of the protocols.

Your second line is pure overselling of masks. Which is more effective at preventing the spread, telling everyone sick and healthy that masks provide significant protection, or telling sick people not to assume masks will prevent you from transmitting the virus? Obviously its the latter. Blanket approaches obscure the problem which is sick people spreading the virus.

Your third line would require me to look up the exact meaning of chimera, so I'm going to abstain from providing an opinion.

Your complaint is the message, not the messaging.

You want to be told you don't have to wear the mask. That is not the advice which you have been given.

 

[watfly]

You want to be told you don't have to wear the mask. That is not the advice which you have been given.

Not even remotely close to what I'm saying, but you know that. Not sure why I bother since you can't debate without mischaracterizing my position.

All I want is a more targeted approach on those that are sick (since the non-infected can't spread the disease) and some honesty about which protective measure(s) is most effective for preventing the spread from an infected person, which is not masks. Like I've said many times, which you choose to ignore, I don't have a big issue with adults wearing a mask as long as were honest that there not a panacea, and aware of their limitations. I do believe that there is not a compelling reason benefit (vs costs) for children to wear masks. You, or others, fear of children and Covid are not compelling reasons.

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

You are proposing there's no reasonable way to get to "truth".

It's more about taking advantage of polarization so that information that has intrinsic uncertainty can be distorted to be either true or false, black or white, supportive of position A or position B. It is then simply plugged into the increasingly incompatible views of the world that we have already come to believe. Science is really just about finding tenable solutions to increasing complex problems. My sink is backed up, where's the clog? That's science. It's just information. It's not meant to be an abitrator of truth or lies. For example, I find it remarkable that a relatively small cohort study out of Isreal uploaded to a preprint service about a week ago has already been linked-just on our small soccer forum site-three times, apparently without people realizing they are linking the same study. It just shows up in their feed or something I guess. As I posted in my critique of it, the conclusions of that study are narrowly focused and based on ~250 cases out of ~65,000 individual studied. A central message is that, regardless of viral or vaccine immune priming, infections with delta in both the Israeli cohorts were rare. However, because of the way the cases binned between the cohorts-which could either be an artifact or informative-the study shows up supporting something like (from this morning) "new research found that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than COVID-19 vaccines", or, if phrased in a more nuanced way, the protection of vaccines is waning. When in reality the study, if it shows anything, the study shows that the vaccines are holding up well with perhaps a decline is a very small set of people. And it is unfortunate, in my view, that Science chose to amplify such a piece, which has also been linked on this site. Once directly and once indirectly through a double click that incorrectly attributed it to Scientific American. So, somewhere, somebody is taking the trouble to find this stuff and mis-frame it in specific ways.

Our form of government, in the current political age (where red and blue disagree fundamentally about even the way the world operates), just simply isn't made for this.

The republic has had issues from the beginning and it's true we largely got to this point on our own. But the process is also being abetted. If we prove incapable of managing our affairs, alternatives will arise spontaneously or be imposed upon us.

I could be wrong. Maybe we are all just arguing like old married people. But it feels different.

 

[Grace T.]

It's more about taking advantage of polarization so that information that has intrinsic uncertainty can be distorted to be either true or false, black or white, supportive of position A or position B. It is then simply plugged into the increasingly incompatible views of the world that we have already come to believe. Science is really just about finding tenable solutions to increasing complex problems. My sink is backed up, where's the clog? That's science. It's just information. It's not meant to be an abitrator of truth or lies. For example, I find it remarkable that a relatively small cohort study out of Isreal uploaded to a preprint service about a week ago has already been linked-just on our small soccer forum site-three times, apparently without people realizing they are linking the same study. It just shows up in their feed or something I guess. As I posted in my critique of it, the conclusions of that study are narrowly focused and based on ~250 cases out of ~65,000 individual studied. A central message is that, regardless of viral or vaccine immune priming, infections with delta in both the Israeli cohorts were rare. However, because of the way the cases binned between the cohorts-which could either be an artifact or informative-the study shows up supporting something like (from this morning) "new research found that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than COVID-19 vaccines", or, if phrased in a more nuanced way, the protection of vaccines is waning. When in reality the study, if it shows anything, the study shows that the vaccines are holding up well with perhaps a decline is a very small set of people. And it is unfortunate, in my view, that Science chose to amplify such a piece, which has also been linked on this site. Once directly and once indirectly through a double click that incorrectly attributed it to Scientific American. So, somewhere, somebody is taking the trouble to find this stuff and mis-frame it in specific ways.



The republic has had issues from the beginning and it's true we largely got to this point on our own. But the process is also being abetted. If we prove incapable of managing our affairs, alternatives will arise spontaneously or be imposed upon us.

I could be wrong. Maybe we are all just arguing like old married people. But it feels different.

I hear your criticism of the study. I posted one as well. It's an important piece though. The entire Fauci/Israeli approach of boosters is predicated on that study. It's also where dad4's masks and vaccine passports flow from....because if you go that route, you need to keep up protection which means you have to protect people for a while as best you can until they can get the additional protection. If you don't believe the study, you just shrug like Europe is (summarized in the Campbell piece), acknowledge everyone is going to get it, get boosters for the most vulnerable, but otherwise lift restrictions and go about your business.

I also agrees it feels different. Basic world outlooks are different between the two camps. One side wants to make stew, the other side wants to make soup, and they both can't have their way.

Thoughtful post, even if it is colored by same of the same criticism your are leveling.

 

[Grace T.]

I hear your criticism of the study. I posted one as well. It's an important piece though. The entire Fauci/Israeli approach of boosters is predicated on that study. It's also where dad4's masks and vaccine passports flow from....because if you go that route, you need to keep up protection which means you have to protect people for a while as best you can until they can get the additional protection. If you don't believe the study, you just shrug like Europe is (summarized in the Campbell piece), acknowledge everyone is going to get it, get boosters for the most vulnerable, but otherwise lift restrictions and go about your business.

I also agrees it feels different. Basic world outlooks are different between the two camps. One side wants to make stew, the other side wants to make soup, and they both can't have their way.

Thoughtful post, even if it is colored by same of the same criticism your are leveling.

Correcting one thing I've been wrong about...the UK is not a unitary state and has devolved much of its powers to 3 of the constituent kingdoms of Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. While England has dropped most restrictions, Scotland has retained masks in schools, public transportation and certain indoor venues. Vaccination in Scotland is just under 70% for double dose, 76% for single (total percent of pop...adults are over 90% now single dose). Yet see below re cases. I'm sure dad4 will either say they aren't masking hard enough or they don't have enough vaccination yet

Face mask use in Scotland could stay through winter, says minister

John Swinney says coverings will remain ‘a part of our lives’, as Covid restrictions are further lifted

www.theguardian.com

Covid in Scotland: The latest cases

A weekly update on Covid-19 cases, hospital admissions and deaths in Scotland.

www.bbc.com

 

[EvilGoalie 21]

I hear your criticism of the study. I posted one as well. It's an important piece though. The entire Fauci/Israeli approach of boosters is predicated on that study. It's also where dad4's masks and vaccine passports flow from....because if you go that route, you need to keep up protection which means you have to protect people for a while as best you can until they can get the additional protection. If you don't believe the study, you just shrug like Europe is (summarized in the Campbell piece), acknowledge everyone is going to get it, get boosters for the most vulnerable, but otherwise lift restrictions and go about your business.

I also agrees it feels different. Basic world outlooks are different between the two camps. One side wants to make stew, the other side wants to make soup, and they both can't have their way.

Thoughtful post, even if it is colored by same of the same criticism your are leveling.

It's not about believing it or not believing it. Sort of the point. What does this study-or any study-show, and to what level of confidence can the data be interpreted? If you feel nation state policy should be underpinned by one small study that rests of 250 cases I'll leave you to it. Next week it will be on to something else. I see the issue of where the misappropriation is coming from, what larger actors are driving it, and how it filters down to end users like us here on this forum and elsewhere as a more relevant focus. Call it cynical if you will.

 

[dad4]

Not even remotely close to what I'm saying, but you know that. Not sure why I bother since you can't debate without mischaracterizing my position.

All I want is a more targeted approach on those that are sick (since the non-infected can't spread the disease) and some honesty about which protective measure(s) is most effective for preventing the spread from an infected person, which is not masks. Like I've said many times, which you choose to ignore, I don't have a big issue with adults wearing a mask as long as were honest that there not a panacea, and aware of their limitations. I do believe that there is not a compelling reason benefit (vs costs) for children to wear masks. You, or others, fear of children and Covid are not compelling reasons.

Read your post. You are asking for the public health message to say something specific.

As it stands, the public health establishment disagrees with you. They cannot tell you that masks are not effective because they do not believe that to be true.

They aren’t being dishonest. They are telling you something you don’t want to hear.

 

[espola]

A very good summary by Dr. John Campbell of the European scientific thinking on where COVID is right now. It's very different than the US approach. Basically Europe is coming around to the idea that herd immunity is impossible and we need to stop mass testing....debate still ranging over boosters v. natural immunity....children probably don't need vaccines mandated.

I have discovered that watching Campbell's videos on youtube at 1.5x playback speed actually makes them more pleasant.

Summary -- we're all going to be exposed to the virus at some point, so prepare by getting vaccinated.

 

[Grace T.]

Read your post. You are asking for the public health message to say something specific.

As it stands, the public health establishment disagrees with you. They cannot tell you that masks are not effective because they do not believe that to be true.

They aren’t being dishonest. They are telling you something you don’t want to hear.

I can't believe you are so far down the mask hole that you can't even realizing that what you are saying by leveling this criticism is that masks are more effective tool than sick/symptomatic people, you know, staying home.

 

[Desert Hound]

If you don't believe the study, you just shrug like Europe is (summarized in the Campbell piece), acknowledge everyone is going to get it, get boosters for the most vulnerable, but otherwise lift restrictions and go about your business.

Funny how that works.

That is essentially what a lot of people (scientists as well) have advocated from the start. That is protect the vulnerable if possible and let the rest of people live their life. Restrictions don't work.

It is only taking 20 or so months for more and more people/countries to come across this rather obvious realization.

 

[Grace T.]

If you feel nation state policy should be underpinned by one small study that rests of 250 cases I'll leave you to it. Next week it will be on to something else. I see the issue of where the misappropriation is coming from, what larger actors are driving it, and how it filters down to end users like us here on this forum and elsewhere as a more relevant focus. Call it cynical if you will.

I certainly don't feel that way. It's one of the reservations I've had re the booster/Israeli approach v. the English/natural immunity approach. But certain people, notably Fauci/Gottlieb/& associates and the Israelis, certainly do since it's justification for the approach they seem hellbent on taking.

 

[Grace T.]

Funny how that works.

That is essentially what a lot of people (scientists as well) have advocated from the start. That is protect the vulnerable if possible and let the rest of people live their life. Restrictions don't work.

It is only taking 20 or so months for more and more people/countries to come across this rather obvious realization.

It's funny that Campbell is one of them, as he certainly seems increasingly sympathetic to the English approach. He was very rah rah about lockdowns, exponential virus growth, and masks at the start of this. Those of us on Team Reality that followed him early on referred to him as "Doctor Doom".

 

[watfly]

Read your post. You are asking for the public health message to say something specific.

As it stands, the public health establishment disagrees with you. They cannot tell you that masks are not effective because they do not believe that to be true.

They aren’t being dishonest. They are telling you something you don’t want to hear.

Let me ask you a question, would you tell your kids that the "rhythm method" is "significantly effective" against pregnancy and recommend it as a form of contraception?