3 ms·

>Hopefully if anything the pause has shown anti-vax folks that the safety of these vaccines is being taken seriously. The vast majority of skeptics will not be

>Hopefully if anything the pause has shown anti-vax folks that the safety of these vaccines is being taken seriously. The vast majority of skeptics will not be convinced by this, because their skepticism is not rooted in the science.

passivate 5y ago
I think it should fall under basic common sense, not science. In reality, only a handful of people in the world understand in detail all the intricacies of the various ways our body interacts with drug substances. This group varies based on the drug in question. The rest of us are just parroting them. Yes you can try to be informed and read-up but at the end of the day they're still a layperson. I work in biotech (vaccines), and outside of my little niche, I'm just your average lay person, just slightly more informed.
- benchaney 5y ago
  > In reality, only a handful of people in the world understand in detail all the intricacies of the various ways our body interacts with drug substances. That is not science, and it is not what is meant when people talk about trusting the science. Science is empiricism. The science that supports the efficacy of vaccination is the data from the trials that shows a reduction in cases. The science supporting safety is similar. This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics. That level of knowledge is somewhat rare, but nowhere near as uncommon as the theoretical knowledge you are describing.
  - passivate 5y ago
    We're not really in disagreement. Let me explain a bit more. Science is a process/methodology of exploring/understanding our natural world/natural phenomenon, Yes? And as such, there is good science, there is average science, and there is junk science. They're all under the same 'Science' umbrella. >The science that supports the efficacy of vaccination is the data from the trials that shows a reduction in cases. This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics. Yes you have a bunch of numbers, but this doesn't tell you whether the study protocol was good, nor does it tell you about the qualitative aspects like how well the study protocol was adhered to, how tight the controls were, etc. Naturally, this is not a new problem, and we have various safeguards already in place at various levels. You also need a third party like say the FDA to audit and examine what was done. >This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics. Yes, but that is not all. People need to understand how clinical trials are conducted, and how for e.g. efficacy numbers can't simply be used to trivially compare two vaccine candidates.
tldrthelaw 5y ago
Not targeting you on this, just an observation: we should be careful with the terms we use. I don't think "skeptic" or "skepticism" applies to anti-vaxxers.
- Sebguer 5y ago
  I guess you can tell the AP to stop using it? https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-vaccine-skepticism-white-evangelicals-us-32898166bbb673ad87842af24c8daefb https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-vaccine-skepticism-wh...
  - tldrthelaw 5y ago
    Sure, if you want me to. Unless you're implying that since the AP makes use of it in this way (and/or its in their Stylebook) there can be no valid contradictory position? They didn't permit a singular use of "they" until like 2017. Sometimes they get stuff wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

passivate 5y ago

I think it should fall under basic common sense, not science. In reality, only a handful of people in the world understand in detail all the intricacies of the various ways our body interacts with drug substances. This group varies based on the drug in question. The rest of us are just parroting them. Yes you can try to be informed and read-up but at the end of the day they're still a layperson. I work in biotech (vaccines), and outside of my little niche, I'm just your average lay person, just slightly more informed.

benchaney 5y ago
> In reality, only a handful of people in the world understand in detail all the intricacies of the various ways our body interacts with drug substances. That is not science, and it is not what is meant when people talk about trusting the science. Science is empiricism. The science that supports the efficacy of vaccination is the data from the trials that shows a reduction in cases. The science supporting safety is similar. This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics. That level of knowledge is somewhat rare, but nowhere near as uncommon as the theoretical knowledge you are describing.
- passivate 5y ago
  We're not really in disagreement. Let me explain a bit more. Science is a process/methodology of exploring/understanding our natural world/natural phenomenon, Yes? And as such, there is good science, there is average science, and there is junk science. They're all under the same 'Science' umbrella. >The science that supports the efficacy of vaccination is the data from the trials that shows a reduction in cases. This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics. Yes you have a bunch of numbers, but this doesn't tell you whether the study protocol was good, nor does it tell you about the qualitative aspects like how well the study protocol was adhered to, how tight the controls were, etc. Naturally, this is not a new problem, and we have various safeguards already in place at various levels. You also need a third party like say the FDA to audit and examine what was done. >This data is something anyone can understand with sufficient knowledge about probability and statistics. Yes, but that is not all. People need to understand how clinical trials are conducted, and how for e.g. efficacy numbers can't simply be used to trivially compare two vaccine candidates.

tldrthelaw 5y ago

Not targeting you on this, just an observation: we should be careful with the terms we use. I don't think "skeptic" or "skepticism" applies to anti-vaxxers.

Sebguer 5y ago
I guess you can tell the AP to stop using it? https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-vaccine-skepticism-white-evangelicals-us-32898166bbb673ad87842af24c8daefb https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-vaccine-skepticism-wh...
- tldrthelaw 5y ago
  Sure, if you want me to. Unless you're implying that since the AP makes use of it in this way (and/or its in their Stylebook) there can be no valid contradictory position? They didn't permit a singular use of "they" until like 2017. Sometimes they get stuff wrong. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯