6 ms·

As the issue of anti-vax sentiment is a big issue for many countries around the world and undoubtably is costing lives, I would think that questions like this n

by Neil44 6y ago

As the issue of anti-vax sentiment is a big issue for many countries around the world and undoubtably is costing lives, I would think that questions like this need not be asked via the media.

mantas 6y ago
Better asked and discussed in media. Than discovered by anti-vax people and then discussed as a secret that media is hiding from The People.
ppf 6y ago
You appreciate that this attitude, that is, that things must be hidden or people might get worried, is exactly why some do not trust the new Covid vaccines?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  It's very much a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, yes.
  - ppf 6y ago
    I'd say that hiding potential issues with a vaccine, where regulations have already been eased to speed up its rollout, is about as damning as it can be.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      So's letting malicious actors permanently obliterate the reputation of one of the vaccines before we can get the data in to know if there's actually an issue. Media headlines are a really sucky way to do data science. There are serious issues in both directions here.
      - curryst 6y ago
        I have yet to see any evidence of malicious actors. There are anti-vaxxers, but they have a genuine belief as far as I can tell. They're not just here to watch the world burn for fun. I also don't see a prevailing reason why one of the vaccine companies would want to sabotage AZ. They're all at maximum production afaict, and AZ had worse efficacy than Moderna already. If it were corporate sabotage, I would expect them to target one of the superior mRNA vaccines. AZ is also the one that screwed up here. If they can't submit correct efficacy data, people should be concerned. That raises serious doubts about their internal organization, and looks like we may be relying on government safety regulations to ensure the vaccine is safe. Which were relaxed for this vaccine. I didn't see a lot of people saying we should keep letting Boeing's MAX keep flying until we could be totally sure that it wasn't just an unlucky streak of drunk pilots. I also don't see a lot of people saying that we should give Boeing lead time to get a PR spin on their latest disaster. > Media headlines are a really sucky way to do data science. I agree. They're also the only way that most people are going to encounter this information, which I would argue they have a right to know. I hope that they'll make rational decisions based on the evidence available, but I'd rather they made poor choices with the evidence than good choices without it.
    - JamisonM 6y ago
      Regulations have been eased?
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        Yes, each of the COVID vaccines are under an "emergency use authorization" in the US that's not quite the same as a full FDA approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Use_Authorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Use_Authorization It's my understanding that the EU has a similar concept. (It's an entirely appropriate use of these regulatory concepts, of course; this sort of pandemic is precisely why they exist.)
        JamisonM 6y ago
        Ah, OK. I wouldn't characterize the use of a preexisting regulatory channel that is present exactly for this purpose as "easing" but it is a perfectly fair position to take. Thanks!
      - ppf 6y ago
        At least where I am (UK), yes. They added to article 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations, allowing an unlicensed vaccine to be advertised in some circumstances, as well as allowing a broader range of people to administer the vaccine, and provided legal protection in law to the developers of the vaccine in case of any issues. This is in addition to the existing powers of article 174, which allows an unlicenced medicine to be rolled out in exceptional circumstances.
        JamisonM 6y ago
        Seems like very silly changes that won't help anything very much but serve a narrative that the government is bending the rules. Very stupid and unfortunate.
        ppf 6y ago
        No, not silly, but potentially justified, in the case of a pandemic. However, these changes obviously increase the risk to the recipient of the vaccine. There's a higher chance of something going wrong with the actual injection, as a broader spectrum of people are administering it (where I live, there was a call for volunteer vaccinators in the local paper), and also very little legal recourse if something is found to be harmful with the vaccine itself. For those reasons, along with the lack of any information as to whether the vaccine has a meaningful effect on reducing transmission, I have decided that the risk (relative to the reward) to me is too high.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > this attitude, that is, that things must be hidden or people might get worried, is exactly why some do not trust the new Covid vaccines? People don’t trust the vaccine because a lot of them are scientifically illiterate and paranoid. That someone on the Internet sees benefit in hiding something doesn’t factor into the equation. It’s an emotional response, not a fact-based one.
  - Bancakes 6y ago
    Show me a vaccine that is 100% efficient with outliers. Until then it's scientists that are failing.
- Symmetry 6y ago
  Negative news reporting like this is a far, far larger issue in vaccine hesitancy.
yunohn 6y ago
I’m not sure what you mean by this sentiment. If there were issues, questions need to be asked. Anti-vax is a problematic issue, but you can’t solve that with hiding facts or causing doubt.
slibhb 6y ago
You trust experts to lie to the public (at the very least through omission) for their own good. No thanks. Your attitude is a significant part of our current political dysfunction. Public servants have been replaced by self-promoters and technocrats who share nothing except contempt for the man on the street.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  In the tech world, we've got responsible disclosure for security holes. That's essentially what's being proposed here - let AZ have 24h to at least come up with a response. The article includes a line saying "AstraZeneca did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment", which sure sounds like "we sent their PR an email, then hit publish an hour later". We've already seen issues in recent weeks with the blood clots issue, where the initial breathless media coverage gives way to "the regulators took a look and it seems fine, it's about the normal level of them, and the pause probably killed many more than the clots ever did". Lay people - including reporters - are really bad at teasing apart normal "how the sausage is made" from "there's an actual issue here", especially with anti-vax propagandists ready to leap on anything with even a hint of confusion.
  - yostrovs 6y ago
    The reason there's so much skepticism of public health authorities is because they repeatedly mislead the public. Right now, for example, Dr Fauci tells people who have been vaccinated to wear two masks. That's because he wants the unvaccinated to keep wearing theirs, lest they see others without masks. But it's nonsense and lay people know it. So they see this and think Fauci is mad, deceptive, or something else that can't be a reason to trust him. And that's how public health figures lose the trust of the public and create millions of skeptics of vaccines, masks, social distancing, etc.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      No, the double masking recommendation comes from studies performed that demonstrate a better fit, especially with the cloth masks that are in widespread use. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7007e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7007e1.htm Don't get mad at Fauci over a personal lack of information.
maxerickson 6y ago
The backlash from people finding out about a quiet discussion can be just as bad. If they favor openness then they don't lose points for secrecy. And it's clear enough that literal anti-vax people don't need a real reason. It's hesitancy that is the addressable issue, which is going to be better addressed by building trust than by saying what sounds right.
throw10123213 6y ago
On the contrary, the dubious secrecy is worrisome. The pandemic of the century and all this is done in the secret? Why isn't the data entirely public with every stats student giving it a go?
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > Why isn't the data entirely public with every stats student giving it a go? That sounds like a recipe for a whole bunch of new charts on https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations to me.
refurb 6y ago
As someone who had been a part of FDA interactions, it’s not being communicated via the media. I have no doubt there were conversations between the FDA and AZ prior to the press release. I assume that whatever the discussion, it wasn’t going to get resolved quickly so the FDA informed AZ they could not sit on the information and would have to make a public statement. The actual final data analysis isn’t done (AZ mentioned this in their press release). It sounds like they did an initial analysis of the final data, it looked similar to the Feb interim data, so they said “good enough, go with 79% in the press release” and the FDA was like “wait a second, that wasn’t the agreed upon final data”.
grillvogel 6y ago
yes we should unquestionably accept everything told to us by the holographic spokespeople of corporations on the tv, after all they always have our best interests in mind
Salgat 6y ago
I'm a huge proponent of vaccinations but this attitude is very concerning. I see it too with J&J, where we have data showing lower efficacy rates and no data on long term avoidance of chronic side-effects of COVID (such as chronic pain and fatigue, organ damage, clots, etc), only data on hospitalization rates (which yes, are on par with other vaccines). And if you dare question any of this, you're immediately shut down and told to shut up. It just makes me trust J&J even less. I'm young and healthy, my biggest risk is not hospitalization but the long term side effects, do not suppress this and do not act like it's wrong to question these things in an informed and intelligent manner.

by Neil44 6y ago

As the issue of anti-vax sentiment is a big issue for many countries around the world and undoubtably is costing lives, I would think that questions like this need not be asked via the media.

mantas 6y ago

Better asked and discussed in media. Than discovered by anti-vax people and then discussed as a secret that media is hiding from The People.

ppf 6y ago

You appreciate that this attitude, that is, that things must be hidden or people might get worried, is exactly why some do not trust the new Covid vaccines?

ceejayoz 6y ago
It's very much a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, yes.
- ppf 6y ago
  I'd say that hiding potential issues with a vaccine, where regulations have already been eased to speed up its rollout, is about as damning as it can be.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    So's letting malicious actors permanently obliterate the reputation of one of the vaccines before we can get the data in to know if there's actually an issue. Media headlines are a really sucky way to do data science. There are serious issues in both directions here.
    - curryst 6y ago
      I have yet to see any evidence of malicious actors. There are anti-vaxxers, but they have a genuine belief as far as I can tell. They're not just here to watch the world burn for fun. I also don't see a prevailing reason why one of the vaccine companies would want to sabotage AZ. They're all at maximum production afaict, and AZ had worse efficacy than Moderna already. If it were corporate sabotage, I would expect them to target one of the superior mRNA vaccines. AZ is also the one that screwed up here. If they can't submit correct efficacy data, people should be concerned. That raises serious doubts about their internal organization, and looks like we may be relying on government safety regulations to ensure the vaccine is safe. Which were relaxed for this vaccine. I didn't see a lot of people saying we should keep letting Boeing's MAX keep flying until we could be totally sure that it wasn't just an unlucky streak of drunk pilots. I also don't see a lot of people saying that we should give Boeing lead time to get a PR spin on their latest disaster. > Media headlines are a really sucky way to do data science. I agree. They're also the only way that most people are going to encounter this information, which I would argue they have a right to know. I hope that they'll make rational decisions based on the evidence available, but I'd rather they made poor choices with the evidence than good choices without it.
  - JamisonM 6y ago
    Regulations have been eased?
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Yes, each of the COVID vaccines are under an "emergency use authorization" in the US that's not quite the same as a full FDA approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Use_Authorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Use_Authorization It's my understanding that the EU has a similar concept. (It's an entirely appropriate use of these regulatory concepts, of course; this sort of pandemic is precisely why they exist.)
      - JamisonM 6y ago
        Ah, OK. I wouldn't characterize the use of a preexisting regulatory channel that is present exactly for this purpose as "easing" but it is a perfectly fair position to take. Thanks!
    - ppf 6y ago
      At least where I am (UK), yes. They added to article 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations, allowing an unlicensed vaccine to be advertised in some circumstances, as well as allowing a broader range of people to administer the vaccine, and provided legal protection in law to the developers of the vaccine in case of any issues. This is in addition to the existing powers of article 174, which allows an unlicenced medicine to be rolled out in exceptional circumstances.
      - JamisonM 6y ago
        Seems like very silly changes that won't help anything very much but serve a narrative that the government is bending the rules. Very stupid and unfortunate.
        ppf 6y ago
        No, not silly, but potentially justified, in the case of a pandemic. However, these changes obviously increase the risk to the recipient of the vaccine. There's a higher chance of something going wrong with the actual injection, as a broader spectrum of people are administering it (where I live, there was a call for volunteer vaccinators in the local paper), and also very little legal recourse if something is found to be harmful with the vaccine itself. For those reasons, along with the lack of any information as to whether the vaccine has a meaningful effect on reducing transmission, I have decided that the risk (relative to the reward) to me is too high.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> this attitude, that is, that things must be hidden or people might get worried, is exactly why some do not trust the new Covid vaccines? People don’t trust the vaccine because a lot of them are scientifically illiterate and paranoid. That someone on the Internet sees benefit in hiding something doesn’t factor into the equation. It’s an emotional response, not a fact-based one.
- Bancakes 6y ago
  Show me a vaccine that is 100% efficient with outliers. Until then it's scientists that are failing.
Symmetry 6y ago
Negative news reporting like this is a far, far larger issue in vaccine hesitancy.

yunohn 6y ago

I’m not sure what you mean by this sentiment. If there were issues, questions need to be asked. Anti-vax is a problematic issue, but you can’t solve that with hiding facts or causing doubt.

slibhb 6y ago

You trust experts to lie to the public (at the very least through omission) for their own good. No thanks. Your attitude is a significant part of our current political dysfunction. Public servants have been replaced by self-promoters and technocrats who share nothing except contempt for the man on the street.

ceejayoz 6y ago
In the tech world, we've got responsible disclosure for security holes. That's essentially what's being proposed here - let AZ have 24h to at least come up with a response. The article includes a line saying "AstraZeneca did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment", which sure sounds like "we sent their PR an email, then hit publish an hour later". We've already seen issues in recent weeks with the blood clots issue, where the initial breathless media coverage gives way to "the regulators took a look and it seems fine, it's about the normal level of them, and the pause probably killed many more than the clots ever did". Lay people - including reporters - are really bad at teasing apart normal "how the sausage is made" from "there's an actual issue here", especially with anti-vax propagandists ready to leap on anything with even a hint of confusion.
- yostrovs 6y ago
  The reason there's so much skepticism of public health authorities is because they repeatedly mislead the public. Right now, for example, Dr Fauci tells people who have been vaccinated to wear two masks. That's because he wants the unvaccinated to keep wearing theirs, lest they see others without masks. But it's nonsense and lay people know it. So they see this and think Fauci is mad, deceptive, or something else that can't be a reason to trust him. And that's how public health figures lose the trust of the public and create millions of skeptics of vaccines, masks, social distancing, etc.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    No, the double masking recommendation comes from studies performed that demonstrate a better fit, especially with the cloth masks that are in widespread use. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7007e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7007e1.htm Don't get mad at Fauci over a personal lack of information.

maxerickson 6y ago

The backlash from people finding out about a quiet discussion can be just as bad. If they favor openness then they don't lose points for secrecy. And it's clear enough that literal anti-vax people don't need a real reason. It's hesitancy that is the addressable issue, which is going to be better addressed by building trust than by saying what sounds right.

throw10123213 6y ago

On the contrary, the dubious secrecy is worrisome. The pandemic of the century and all this is done in the secret? Why isn't the data entirely public with every stats student giving it a go?

ceejayoz 6y ago
> Why isn't the data entirely public with every stats student giving it a go? That sounds like a recipe for a whole bunch of new charts on https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations to me.

refurb 6y ago

As someone who had been a part of FDA interactions, it’s not being communicated via the media. I have no doubt there were conversations between the FDA and AZ prior to the press release. I assume that whatever the discussion, it wasn’t going to get resolved quickly so the FDA informed AZ they could not sit on the information and would have to make a public statement. The actual final data analysis isn’t done (AZ mentioned this in their press release). It sounds like they did an initial analysis of the final data, it looked similar to the Feb interim data, so they said “good enough, go with 79% in the press release” and the FDA was like “wait a second, that wasn’t the agreed upon final data”.

grillvogel 6y ago

yes we should unquestionably accept everything told to us by the holographic spokespeople of corporations on the tv, after all they always have our best interests in mind

Salgat 6y ago

I'm a huge proponent of vaccinations but this attitude is very concerning. I see it too with J&J, where we have data showing lower efficacy rates and no data on long term avoidance of chronic side-effects of COVID (such as chronic pain and fatigue, organ damage, clots, etc), only data on hospitalization rates (which yes, are on par with other vaccines). And if you dare question any of this, you're immediately shut down and told to shut up. It just makes me trust J&J even less. I'm young and healthy, my biggest risk is not hospitalization but the long term side effects, do not suppress this and do not act like it's wrong to question these things in an informed and intelligent manner.