4 ms·

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 p

by 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 Public servants have been replaced by self-promoters and technocrats who share nothing except contempt for the man on the street.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.
    - faucismasks 6y ago
      You missed the point. Why does Fauci care about the fit of his masks if the vaccine he took is effective? It's not about what the CDC recommends: if Fauci has faith in the vaccine, why is he personally walking around with two masks on? He should take them off to inspire confidence in the vaccine but... Something must be stopping him. Either there's something he doesn't trust about the vaccine or he thinks there's some other reason he and others should go on wearing masks after being vaccinated. Little people like me must not be privy to that info. All I know is I don't trust him ;)
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        Because while we have conclusive data that states "the vaccine will keep you out of the hospital", we do not yet have the data that lets us conclusively say "you can't get and spread the virus if you're vaccinated". Israel's data thus far looks promising (https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-vaccine-int/israeli-studies-find-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-reduces-transmission-idUSKBN2AJ08J https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-va...), but they're being careful because they don't yet know for certain. Again, "I don't know the answer" isn't the same as "there is no answer".
        faucismasks 6y ago
        Wrong, according to Fauci when pressed by Dr Rand Paul MD on this, Fauci said it's because we don't know how well the vaccine works against variants So no that's not why he's wearing two masks, he obviously doesn't trust the vaccine to protect him, said it himself. It was a rhetorical question that I posed. Get informed about what your insane leaders are telling you to do and why. You want to lecture me about CDC guidance or being uninformed and you don't even know the incident I was referencing in my original post. Fauci will probably never stop wearing the masks because there will always be something he could catch. There will always be more variants.
    - peytn 6y ago
      From that article: > The findings of these simulations should neither be generalized to the effectiveness of all medical procedure masks or cloths masks nor interpreted as being representative of the effectiveness of these masks when worn in real-world settings. I think complaints are justified when CDC officials turn around and do exactly what their report says not to do: interpret the findings as being representative of real-world settings. A year in and with trillions spent, our evidentiary standard should be higher.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- slibhb 6y ago
  Let's make a distinction between "the tech world" and some substance we're injecting into people en masse. In all likelihood the AstraZeneca vaccine is perfectly fine. But we should have this conversation in public. If people "come to the wrong conclusions," that's fine. It's the price we pay for an open society.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > Let's make a distinction between "the tech world" and some substance we're injecting into people en masse. Yes, let's, but let's also factor in "how many people die if we pause vaccinations for several weeks and it turns out not to have been an issue".
    - slibhb 6y ago
      I have two arguments against this: 1. If there's a serious issue with the vaccine and we kept it quiet, the consequences would be catastrophic. Not only in terms of public health but also in terms of public trust. Even a small chance of this outcome far, far outweighs the number of people who will die due to people wrongly deciding not to get the AZ vaccine. 2. We have a moral obligation to have conversations in public that involve the safety of injecting substances into people. Regardless of "cost benefit analysis," people simply have a right to be privy to these conversations. It's better for things to go worse and respect this right than for things to go better and not respect it.
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        > If there's a serious issue with the vaccine and we kept it quiet, the consequences would be catastrophic. The issue in question is about efficacy, not some unexpected dangerous drug interaction or side effect. Somewhat lower than expected efficacy wouldn't be "catastrophic".
        slibhb 6y ago
        You expressed concern about anti-vaxxers, correct? If it turns out the AZ vaccine doesn't work very well, that's a boost to them, especially if the conversation occurred in private. Perhaps that will result in more people dying in the long run due to decreased trust in institutions. When you play this utilitarian game, you can kick the consequences can down the road forever, which is why it's better to think of these arguments in more immediate terms.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  > 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. Exactly this. Journalists and laypeople are specialists in making mountain out of molehills But it's said when specialists also do that (with the suspension of the vaccine when the thing it is preventing has a 1000x chance of causing the same problem)
- robbiemitchell 6y ago
  > "DSMB externalisations of concerns are deeply unusual for multinational pharma companies and suggest an extraordinary high level of friction between the DSMB and the sponsor,' Citi analysts said in a note." It sounds like they're not getting the type of collaboration they want from AZ, so they've raised the stakes.
nerdbaggy 6y ago
The pharmaceutical company is littered with corruption and kickbacks. Look at any pharmaceutical company on Wikipedia
- donovanian 6y ago
  Which is why I at least take pause when I see the entire liberal sphere drop their characteristic distrust of the healthcare industry in the US and the whole "profiting off healthcare is evil" line, to suddenly standing in solidarity with Big Pharma.
Neil44 6y ago
I don't think experts are lying to the public, I think they have questions and it's correct they should ask them. But you can do that with a phone call or an email. When you make a press release you're not asking a question you're making a statement. And the statement the media makes and then the statement the public choose to hear are beyond your control. To use the old analogy, there are consequences to yelling fire in a crowded theater.

by slibhb 6y ago

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.
  - faucismasks 6y ago
    You missed the point. Why does Fauci care about the fit of his masks if the vaccine he took is effective? It's not about what the CDC recommends: if Fauci has faith in the vaccine, why is he personally walking around with two masks on? He should take them off to inspire confidence in the vaccine but... Something must be stopping him. Either there's something he doesn't trust about the vaccine or he thinks there's some other reason he and others should go on wearing masks after being vaccinated. Little people like me must not be privy to that info. All I know is I don't trust him ;)
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      Because while we have conclusive data that states "the vaccine will keep you out of the hospital", we do not yet have the data that lets us conclusively say "you can't get and spread the virus if you're vaccinated". Israel's data thus far looks promising (https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-vaccine-int/israeli-studies-find-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-reduces-transmission-idUSKBN2AJ08J https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-israel-va...), but they're being careful because they don't yet know for certain. Again, "I don't know the answer" isn't the same as "there is no answer".
      - faucismasks 6y ago
        Wrong, according to Fauci when pressed by Dr Rand Paul MD on this, Fauci said it's because we don't know how well the vaccine works against variants So no that's not why he's wearing two masks, he obviously doesn't trust the vaccine to protect him, said it himself. It was a rhetorical question that I posed. Get informed about what your insane leaders are telling you to do and why. You want to lecture me about CDC guidance or being uninformed and you don't even know the incident I was referencing in my original post. Fauci will probably never stop wearing the masks because there will always be something he could catch. There will always be more variants.
  - peytn 6y ago
    From that article: > The findings of these simulations should neither be generalized to the effectiveness of all medical procedure masks or cloths masks nor interpreted as being representative of the effectiveness of these masks when worn in real-world settings. I think complaints are justified when CDC officials turn around and do exactly what their report says not to do: interpret the findings as being representative of real-world settings. A year in and with trillions spent, our evidentiary standard should be higher.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
slibhb 6y ago
Let's make a distinction between "the tech world" and some substance we're injecting into people en masse. In all likelihood the AstraZeneca vaccine is perfectly fine. But we should have this conversation in public. If people "come to the wrong conclusions," that's fine. It's the price we pay for an open society.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > Let's make a distinction between "the tech world" and some substance we're injecting into people en masse. Yes, let's, but let's also factor in "how many people die if we pause vaccinations for several weeks and it turns out not to have been an issue".
  - slibhb 6y ago
    I have two arguments against this: 1. If there's a serious issue with the vaccine and we kept it quiet, the consequences would be catastrophic. Not only in terms of public health but also in terms of public trust. Even a small chance of this outcome far, far outweighs the number of people who will die due to people wrongly deciding not to get the AZ vaccine. 2. We have a moral obligation to have conversations in public that involve the safety of injecting substances into people. Regardless of "cost benefit analysis," people simply have a right to be privy to these conversations. It's better for things to go worse and respect this right than for things to go better and not respect it.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > If there's a serious issue with the vaccine and we kept it quiet, the consequences would be catastrophic. The issue in question is about efficacy, not some unexpected dangerous drug interaction or side effect. Somewhat lower than expected efficacy wouldn't be "catastrophic".
      - slibhb 6y ago
        You expressed concern about anti-vaxxers, correct? If it turns out the AZ vaccine doesn't work very well, that's a boost to them, especially if the conversation occurred in private. Perhaps that will result in more people dying in the long run due to decreased trust in institutions. When you play this utilitarian game, you can kick the consequences can down the road forever, which is why it's better to think of these arguments in more immediate terms.
raverbashing 6y ago
> 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. Exactly this. Journalists and laypeople are specialists in making mountain out of molehills But it's said when specialists also do that (with the suspension of the vaccine when the thing it is preventing has a 1000x chance of causing the same problem)
robbiemitchell 6y ago
> "DSMB externalisations of concerns are deeply unusual for multinational pharma companies and suggest an extraordinary high level of friction between the DSMB and the sponsor,' Citi analysts said in a note." It sounds like they're not getting the type of collaboration they want from AZ, so they've raised the stakes.

nerdbaggy 6y ago

The pharmaceutical company is littered with corruption and kickbacks. Look at any pharmaceutical company on Wikipedia

donovanian 6y ago
Which is why I at least take pause when I see the entire liberal sphere drop their characteristic distrust of the healthcare industry in the US and the whole "profiting off healthcare is evil" line, to suddenly standing in solidarity with Big Pharma.

Neil44 6y ago

I don't think experts are lying to the public, I think they have questions and it's correct they should ask them. But you can do that with a phone call or an email. When you make a press release you're not asking a question you're making a statement. And the statement the media makes and then the statement the public choose to hear are beyond your control. To use the old analogy, there are consequences to yelling fire in a crowded theater.