6 ms·

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?

by ppf 6y ago

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.

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?

by 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.