5 ms·

"82% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans expressed concern that the Covid-19 vaccine approval process would be driven more by politics than by science. More th

by ars 6y ago

"82% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans expressed concern that the Covid-19 vaccine approval process would be driven more by politics than by science. More than 80% of independents, Republicans, and Democrats said they would worry about the safety of a vaccine that was approved quickly." Wow. And lest you think this is a Trump thing, the figures are similar in European countries. A bad COVID vaccine (one that doesn't work), or heaven help us, one that causes harm, could set public healthcare back decades.

gizmo686 6y ago
It doesn't even have to be a "bad" vaccine. The FDA has already said that 50% effectiveness would be sufficient, which would put it about on par with the seasonal flu vaccine. Combined with a high baseline infection rate, and an aggressive testing regime (at least compared to flu/other non-pandemic diseases), there will be a lot of people who get vaccinated and proceed to get sick and test positive. The real evidence of the vaccine working would be by the herd immunity it creates. But that is a population level effect, and people are terrible at understanding population level effects.
- lettergram 6y ago
  > The FDA has already said that 50% effectiveness would be sufficient, which would put it about on par with the seasonal flu vaccine. I think it’s difficult to quantify how successful the flu vaccine is. I’ve reviewed the numbers and it’s not clear the general flu vaccine does anything. That being said, targeting specific strains can help (problem with flu is the various strains and ability to mutate so easily).
  - liability 6y ago
    They make a new flu vaccine twice a year and effectiveness is quantified each time. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates...
    - lettergram 6y ago
      The problem is correlations. The flu naturally varies in severity by region, age, time, etc. Even the studies you linked, anything prior to 2010 is suspect by participant counts being way too low. More recent studies appear better, BUT we don’t have anything prior to when vaccines started to compare. I’m not saying the evidence isn’t there, I am arguing it’s circumstantial - aka not definitive how much it helps. Flu itself varies in severity widely. I’m honestly convinced the entire flu vaccine program / push is to keep the industry active. This is similar to the DOD spending money on new weapons they don’t need to keep manufacturing going
    - nradov 6y ago
      The NIH is attempting to develop a universal influenza vaccine. A clinical trial is currently underway. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/universal-influenza-vaccine-research https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/universal-infl...
- ssully 6y ago
  My understanding is that while prevent infection using the vaccine is a big goal, the other more important goal is that it triggers a better response in people when they do get sick. Specifically, if you get the vaccine and then go on to catch the virus, your body will fight it better and you will have minor symptoms (and hopefully don't go to the ICU). I will say that everything I've said is just from what I read. If someone with an actual medical background knows more, I would love to hear it.
  - gizmo686 6y ago
    That is my understanding as well, but it is entirely irrelevant to the point being made. If someone on the anti-vax margins get the vaccine and proceeds to get sick and test positive, the are more likely to say "the vaccine doesn't work" compared with "I would have gotten more sick if I wasn't vaccinated". You also wont here all the stories of people who got the vaccine and proceeded to not get sick; so there is a sampling bias to hearing about cases where the vaccine doesn't work as well. The concern here is about the longterm PR of vaccinations, not the technical benefits of the vaccine.
polote 6y ago
> the figures are similar in European countries. Do you have a source ?
treeman79 6y ago
It is a political decision. The kind leaders are supposed to make, the kind they don’t like making. A leader has to decide on either pushing early and either saving/condemning hundreds of thousand of lives. Or playing it safe and condemning/saving hundreds of thousands to death while we complete years worth of trials. Oh because that’s not enough pressure the economy is burning, which will cost many lives as well. It’s a horrible decision to make anyway you slice it. Politician is going to be hated no matter what. If it works, they are bad for taking so long, taking risk. If it goes south...
- ip26 6y ago
  I think the common understanding of a decision 'driven by politics instead of science' is making the choice in the way that most advantages your own political career, instead of the way that saves lives or the economy.
  - tux1968 6y ago
    Aren't those two things essentially the same thing? The best way to advance your career is to make choices that benefit the most people. You're not going to get ahead if your decision fails to save lives or the economy.
    - ip26 6y ago
      The best way to advance your career is to make choices that benefit the most people. You're not going to get ahead if your decision fails to save lives or the economy. Is this satire, or simply your first brush with politics? The subject of the vaccine is a tidy hypothetical example. Approve vaccine (with no actual regard to efficacy or safety). Bolster confidence in the status quo, reopen economy. People feel hopeful, things look up, re-elect current administration. Whoops, turns out the vaccine is actually poison. But it's too late to elect the other guy now, and the administration retains power four more years.
    - junipertea 6y ago
      You are, if you manage to blame the other party for sabotaging you.
blackflame7000 6y ago
Do you really believe polls like this are accurate?
- jdhbbbhb 6y ago
  No. It's all propaganda
eanzenberg 6y ago
Not sure how this is an ‘only’ Trump thing. Republicans believe D-politics will delay the vaccine so it doesn’t come out before Nov 3rd, and Democrats believe R-politics will prematurely release a vaccine before Nov 3rd. This country has become so politically cancerous that I wonder if a WW2 style event were to happen (as if Covid isn’t one already) if the country could unite around it, today. And before you question the thesis, I’ve had the pleasure of listening to a few doctors lament the possibility of having life-saving therapies or vaccines if it helped Trump get re-elected.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
sugarpile 6y ago
“A bad COVID vaccine (one that doesn't work), or heaven help us, one that causes harm, could set public healthcare back decades.” I see this a lot (and am not jumping on you), do you mind explaining why you feel this way? To me one of the few things that could restore my faith in public health after how this pandemic has been handled is allowing widespread early access to the vaccine with full access to whatever data has been gathered. In flight is fine. This “hur dur the masses can’t be trusted to make their own decisions” shit has got to stop. It has become clear public health in the US is more politics than health so any sort of management on an individual level gets zero trust from me.

by ars 6y ago

gizmo686 6y ago

It doesn't even have to be a "bad" vaccine. The FDA has already said that 50% effectiveness would be sufficient, which would put it about on par with the seasonal flu vaccine. Combined with a high baseline infection rate, and an aggressive testing regime (at least compared to flu/other non-pandemic diseases), there will be a lot of people who get vaccinated and proceed to get sick and test positive. The real evidence of the vaccine working would be by the herd immunity it creates. But that is a population level effect, and people are terrible at understanding population level effects.

lettergram 6y ago
> The FDA has already said that 50% effectiveness would be sufficient, which would put it about on par with the seasonal flu vaccine. I think it’s difficult to quantify how successful the flu vaccine is. I’ve reviewed the numbers and it’s not clear the general flu vaccine does anything. That being said, targeting specific strains can help (problem with flu is the various strains and ability to mutate so easily).
- liability 6y ago
  They make a new flu vaccine twice a year and effectiveness is quantified each time. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/past-seasons-estimates...
  - lettergram 6y ago
    The problem is correlations. The flu naturally varies in severity by region, age, time, etc. Even the studies you linked, anything prior to 2010 is suspect by participant counts being way too low. More recent studies appear better, BUT we don’t have anything prior to when vaccines started to compare. I’m not saying the evidence isn’t there, I am arguing it’s circumstantial - aka not definitive how much it helps. Flu itself varies in severity widely. I’m honestly convinced the entire flu vaccine program / push is to keep the industry active. This is similar to the DOD spending money on new weapons they don’t need to keep manufacturing going
  - nradov 6y ago
    The NIH is attempting to develop a universal influenza vaccine. A clinical trial is currently underway. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/universal-influenza-vaccine-research https://www.niaid.nih.gov/diseases-conditions/universal-infl...
ssully 6y ago
My understanding is that while prevent infection using the vaccine is a big goal, the other more important goal is that it triggers a better response in people when they do get sick. Specifically, if you get the vaccine and then go on to catch the virus, your body will fight it better and you will have minor symptoms (and hopefully don't go to the ICU). I will say that everything I've said is just from what I read. If someone with an actual medical background knows more, I would love to hear it.
- gizmo686 6y ago
  That is my understanding as well, but it is entirely irrelevant to the point being made. If someone on the anti-vax margins get the vaccine and proceeds to get sick and test positive, the are more likely to say "the vaccine doesn't work" compared with "I would have gotten more sick if I wasn't vaccinated". You also wont here all the stories of people who got the vaccine and proceeded to not get sick; so there is a sampling bias to hearing about cases where the vaccine doesn't work as well. The concern here is about the longterm PR of vaccinations, not the technical benefits of the vaccine.

polote 6y ago

> the figures are similar in European countries. Do you have a source ?

treeman79 6y ago

It is a political decision. The kind leaders are supposed to make, the kind they don’t like making. A leader has to decide on either pushing early and either saving/condemning hundreds of thousand of lives. Or playing it safe and condemning/saving hundreds of thousands to death while we complete years worth of trials. Oh because that’s not enough pressure the economy is burning, which will cost many lives as well. It’s a horrible decision to make anyway you slice it. Politician is going to be hated no matter what. If it works, they are bad for taking so long, taking risk. If it goes south...

ip26 6y ago
I think the common understanding of a decision 'driven by politics instead of science' is making the choice in the way that most advantages your own political career, instead of the way that saves lives or the economy.
- tux1968 6y ago
  Aren't those two things essentially the same thing? The best way to advance your career is to make choices that benefit the most people. You're not going to get ahead if your decision fails to save lives or the economy.
  - ip26 6y ago
    The best way to advance your career is to make choices that benefit the most people. You're not going to get ahead if your decision fails to save lives or the economy. Is this satire, or simply your first brush with politics? The subject of the vaccine is a tidy hypothetical example. Approve vaccine (with no actual regard to efficacy or safety). Bolster confidence in the status quo, reopen economy. People feel hopeful, things look up, re-elect current administration. Whoops, turns out the vaccine is actually poison. But it's too late to elect the other guy now, and the administration retains power four more years.
  - junipertea 6y ago
    You are, if you manage to blame the other party for sabotaging you.

blackflame7000 6y ago

Do you really believe polls like this are accurate?

jdhbbbhb 6y ago
No. It's all propaganda

eanzenberg 6y ago

Not sure how this is an ‘only’ Trump thing. Republicans believe D-politics will delay the vaccine so it doesn’t come out before Nov 3rd, and Democrats believe R-politics will prematurely release a vaccine before Nov 3rd. This country has become so politically cancerous that I wonder if a WW2 style event were to happen (as if Covid isn’t one already) if the country could unite around it, today. And before you question the thesis, I’ve had the pleasure of listening to a few doctors lament the possibility of having life-saving therapies or vaccines if it helped Trump get re-elected.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

sugarpile 6y ago

“A bad COVID vaccine (one that doesn't work), or heaven help us, one that causes harm, could set public healthcare back decades.” I see this a lot (and am not jumping on you), do you mind explaining why you feel this way? To me one of the few things that could restore my faith in public health after how this pandemic has been handled is allowing widespread early access to the vaccine with full access to whatever data has been gathered. In flight is fine. This “hur dur the masses can’t be trusted to make their own decisions” shit has got to stop. It has become clear public health in the US is more politics than health so any sort of management on an individual level gets zero trust from me.