4 ms·

Pausing like that causes, not prevents, vaccine skepticism. In an era of declining public trust of institutions (across both political aisles, even if unequall

Pausing like that causes, not prevents, vaccine skepticism. In an era of declining public trust of institutions (across both political aisles, even if unequally), I argue this pause was poor politics. Science doesn't enter much into it, unfortunately.

Fomite 6y ago
Personally, I prefer drug safety protocols be based on science, not what people feel, or whether or not it's "good politics".
- mancerayder 6y ago
  This is what I am arguing above. In light of this, would you say the pause was good science and not politics?
  - Fomite 6y ago
    Yes. The pause was exactly what should have been done, and every single vaccine specialist I know was both supportive and unsurprised.
    - mancerayder 6y ago
      Your confidence is unwarranted, and we don't know who you are or the significance of "every single vaccine specialist [you] know"? Just moments ago a Bloomberg summary popped into my inbox and a link from "The pause of the J&J vaccine was not without its controversy" and a link from there has this as the last sentence of the article: In the meantime, health officials will need to convince the public to take J&J’s shot. Americans’ confidence in Covid-19 vaccines continues to rise, according to a poll from the de Beaumont Foundation, an advocacy group focused on public health. But it has taken a toll on trust in J&J’s shot, specifically, with nearly one-third of respondents saying they’d never take the single-dose vaccine. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-23/five-things-to-watch-as-j-j-covid-vaccine-gets-cdc-panel-review?cmpid=BBD042321_BIZ&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=210423&utm_campaign=bloombergdaily https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-23/five-thin...)
      - jopsen 6y ago
        Yes, the media loves to report that acknowledging rare side-effects causes people to not want J&J. The media is just drumming up controversy where there is none. The alternatives to being open and acknowledging rare side-effects are worse. I sure don't want to get the Russian Sputnik vaccine because I have zero trust the Russians would sweep rare side-effects under the rug.
- creddit 6y ago
  > Personally, I prefer drug safety protocols be based on science, not what people feel, or whether or not it's "good politics". Implicit to this point is that what the CDC/FDA did was "good science" and not bad science.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    No, implicit to the point is that what the CDC/FDA did was follow the ongoing drug safety monitoring protocols that have long been established for Emergency Use Authorization.
    - creddit 6y ago
      Why are you so wed to the idea that these protocols are in some sense correct? So many people have basically asserted infallibility for the CDC/FDA throughout this pandemic despite their consistent failures across huge swaths of the response from border lockdowns to masks and of course to this non-sensical pause.
nickff 6y ago
There have been some studies which demonstrated that experts gain credibility when they express uncertainty. Amateurs on the other hand lose credibility when they express uncertainty. I don't have a citation handy, but I thought you might find the perspective useful.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  Does the citation include the recent major skepticism of Astra? There are French polls that backed major skepticism of Astra specifically after the pause. The downvotes are puzzling. Are people capable of countering with reason, or is a downvote a proxy vote for how they wish reality to be?
  - jrochkind1 6y ago
    They're perhaps downvoting because what was described was "studies" (not "the citation"), that were about credibility and uncertainly generally, and it's safe to assume they weren't conducted in the past 4 months and have nothing to do with covid vaccines, but you jump in with "well your study means nothing to me unless it was conducted in the past two months and already peer reviewed and published" which is not how it works.
    - mancerayder 6y ago
      Thanks. I posted a link from a Bloomberg-quoted poll above that meets the criteria you suggested means something to you.
  - marvin 6y ago
    You should be wary of concluding stupidity when the French population are skeptical towards government statements. It's a completely different culture to the one you're likely used to. The French frequently have legitimate distrust towards their authorities, and assume based on experience that the government is lying. This would be a confounding effect when trying to determine whether it was the uncertainty that caused the distrust, or the source of the statement.
notatoad 6y ago
pausing causes vaccine hesitance, but finding out that the authorities knew about potential risks like this and didn't pause the rollout to assess those risks also causes vaccine hesitance, and is also poor politics. they did the safe thing, regardless of the politics. if you're skeptical about vaccines you should be reassured by that. and if a person is skeptical about vaccines but somehow isn't reassured by the authorities taking responsible safety precautions, they're probably not coming from a place of reason and there's not much point worrying what they think.
jrochkind1 6y ago
I think either pausing or not pausing could increase or decrease vaccine confidence. One could imagine pausing: "oh, they are being careful, great, and NOW after looking at it, they've determined it is safe." (The pausing is actually a consequence of the sped-up approval; the sped-up approval process comes with a requirement to pay extra extra scrutiny to any side effects reported) OR "See, they admit it's not safe, they paused it!" Same with not pausing: "See they rushed the approval, and now they are ignoring side effects" OR just nobody hears about the side effects without the publicity, or figures they must not be a big deal if they didn't even bother pausig it or whatever. Could go either way. The difference in either case is probably determined by building up trust over time, by transparency, and by having an effective communications/education/marketing plan (specifically for communications around the side effects/pause). In the USA, of course, we have none of that. So it was probably going to decrease confidence either way. What a country!
jopsen 6y ago
> Pausing like that causes, not prevents, vaccine skepticism. Citation needed. > In an era of declining public trust of institutions... In such an era we need institutions to display integrity above and beyond. That means not letting unfounded vaccine skepticism affect how rollout is conducted. > I argue this pause was poor politics. Was this a political decision? Example: As I understood it, choosing not to go with AZ in Denmark was not a political decision.

Fomite 6y ago

Personally, I prefer drug safety protocols be based on science, not what people feel, or whether or not it's "good politics".

mancerayder 6y ago
This is what I am arguing above. In light of this, would you say the pause was good science and not politics?
- Fomite 6y ago
  Yes. The pause was exactly what should have been done, and every single vaccine specialist I know was both supportive and unsurprised.
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    Your confidence is unwarranted, and we don't know who you are or the significance of "every single vaccine specialist [you] know"? Just moments ago a Bloomberg summary popped into my inbox and a link from "The pause of the J&J vaccine was not without its controversy" and a link from there has this as the last sentence of the article: In the meantime, health officials will need to convince the public to take J&J’s shot. Americans’ confidence in Covid-19 vaccines continues to rise, according to a poll from the de Beaumont Foundation, an advocacy group focused on public health. But it has taken a toll on trust in J&J’s shot, specifically, with nearly one-third of respondents saying they’d never take the single-dose vaccine. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-23/five-things-to-watch-as-j-j-covid-vaccine-gets-cdc-panel-review?cmpid=BBD042321_BIZ&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=210423&utm_campaign=bloombergdaily https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-23/five-thin...)
    - jopsen 6y ago
      Yes, the media loves to report that acknowledging rare side-effects causes people to not want J&J. The media is just drumming up controversy where there is none. The alternatives to being open and acknowledging rare side-effects are worse. I sure don't want to get the Russian Sputnik vaccine because I have zero trust the Russians would sweep rare side-effects under the rug.
creddit 6y ago
> Personally, I prefer drug safety protocols be based on science, not what people feel, or whether or not it's "good politics". Implicit to this point is that what the CDC/FDA did was "good science" and not bad science.
- elliekelly 6y ago
  No, implicit to the point is that what the CDC/FDA did was follow the ongoing drug safety monitoring protocols that have long been established for Emergency Use Authorization.
  - creddit 6y ago
    Why are you so wed to the idea that these protocols are in some sense correct? So many people have basically asserted infallibility for the CDC/FDA throughout this pandemic despite their consistent failures across huge swaths of the response from border lockdowns to masks and of course to this non-sensical pause.

nickff 6y ago

There have been some studies which demonstrated that experts gain credibility when they express uncertainty. Amateurs on the other hand lose credibility when they express uncertainty. I don't have a citation handy, but I thought you might find the perspective useful.

mancerayder 6y ago
Does the citation include the recent major skepticism of Astra? There are French polls that backed major skepticism of Astra specifically after the pause. The downvotes are puzzling. Are people capable of countering with reason, or is a downvote a proxy vote for how they wish reality to be?
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  They're perhaps downvoting because what was described was "studies" (not "the citation"), that were about credibility and uncertainly generally, and it's safe to assume they weren't conducted in the past 4 months and have nothing to do with covid vaccines, but you jump in with "well your study means nothing to me unless it was conducted in the past two months and already peer reviewed and published" which is not how it works.
  - mancerayder 6y ago
    Thanks. I posted a link from a Bloomberg-quoted poll above that meets the criteria you suggested means something to you.
- marvin 6y ago
  You should be wary of concluding stupidity when the French population are skeptical towards government statements. It's a completely different culture to the one you're likely used to. The French frequently have legitimate distrust towards their authorities, and assume based on experience that the government is lying. This would be a confounding effect when trying to determine whether it was the uncertainty that caused the distrust, or the source of the statement.

notatoad 6y ago

pausing causes vaccine hesitance, but finding out that the authorities knew about potential risks like this and didn't pause the rollout to assess those risks also causes vaccine hesitance, and is also poor politics. they did the safe thing, regardless of the politics. if you're skeptical about vaccines you should be reassured by that. and if a person is skeptical about vaccines but somehow isn't reassured by the authorities taking responsible safety precautions, they're probably not coming from a place of reason and there's not much point worrying what they think.

jrochkind1 6y ago

I think either pausing or not pausing could increase or decrease vaccine confidence. One could imagine pausing: "oh, they are being careful, great, and NOW after looking at it, they've determined it is safe." (The pausing is actually a consequence of the sped-up approval; the sped-up approval process comes with a requirement to pay extra extra scrutiny to any side effects reported) OR "See, they admit it's not safe, they paused it!" Same with not pausing: "See they rushed the approval, and now they are ignoring side effects" OR just nobody hears about the side effects without the publicity, or figures they must not be a big deal if they didn't even bother pausig it or whatever. Could go either way. The difference in either case is probably determined by building up trust over time, by transparency, and by having an effective communications/education/marketing plan (specifically for communications around the side effects/pause). In the USA, of course, we have none of that. So it was probably going to decrease confidence either way. What a country!

jopsen 6y ago

> Pausing like that causes, not prevents, vaccine skepticism. Citation needed. > In an era of declining public trust of institutions... In such an era we need institutions to display integrity above and beyond. That means not letting unfounded vaccine skepticism affect how rollout is conducted. > I argue this pause was poor politics. Was this a political decision? Example: As I understood it, choosing not to go with AZ in Denmark was not a political decision.