4 ms·

>failing to believe science Believing in science means believing in falsification and sceptism. This was published during the ongoing replication crisis in me

>failing to believe science Believing in science means believing in falsification and sceptism. This was published during the ongoing replication crisis in medicine where we're finding that more than half of cancer studies don't replicate [1]. This replication crisis hasn't been put on hold and all science is now deemed irrefutable or you are VACCINE HESISTANT and DANGEROUS. I'm mostly confident in the COVID vaccines because we're at billions of doses and there is so much uncorrelated data about the vaccines, and they're so controversial and their safety/efficacy is being looked at by so many people that one can be relatively confident about their efficacy and safety (so long as you look at uncensored information to avoid systemic bias). We don't need to be science denialists and start denouncing scepticism on safety grounds, we can point out there are special reasons to be confident in the vaccines. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/18/510304871/what-does-it-mean-when-cancer-findings-cant-be-reproduced https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/18/5103048...

adolph 5y ago
don't replicate != fraudulent I'm mostly confident in the COVID vaccines <- Is this "mostly" qualifier not the dangerous front end of misinformation and vaccine hesitancy?
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  I've got both vaccines especially early for my age group (clinical vulnerability) and I've been lobbying my vaccinated peers to at least get one dose, so apparently not. I say "mostly confident" because we have literally zero data of effects after 3 years and can only make inferences, and it's foolish to feign knowledge you do not have to avoid being called "hesitant", but my lack of confidence does not make me hesitate to recommend the vaccine. I also lack knowledge of long term effects of COVID itself which may in fact be worse than the long term effects of any vaccine given COVID does most of what the vaccines do plus extra nasty stuff.
  - adolph 5y ago
    You are recommending something over nothing despite not being confident in the data about your recommendation? Which vaccines were in "both vaccines?" An mRNA and J&J, or just both administrations of a two-shot mRNA vaccine?
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      > You are recommending something over nothing despite not being confident in the data about your recommendation? (Not OP but) Yes. Reasoning despite uncertainty is entirely possible; if you want a mathematical formalism, look into Bayesian statistics.
      - adolph 5y ago
        I don’t think Laplace would call reasoning without data (the commenter’s avowed position) Bayesian.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Zero data of the effects after three years. Plenty of data about the effects after one. It's not “reasoning without data”; it's reasoning without as much data as one would have liked. Are you doing this on purpose?
        adolph 5y ago
        The commenter did not say the results of one year were under consideration. They described a state of recommendation without information. Besides, March to July isn’t even half a year for phase 3 trials. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04811664 https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04811664
        faeriechangling 5y ago
        I did mention inferences. You seem to be concerned that I don't maintain a state of complete agnosticism in any matter which I lack data for, but it's really hard to do so in practice in a world of distinct choices. Most everybody will either get vaccinated or not get vaccinated and at least have made an implicit prediction about the future. Since I was pressured into making that choice it seems hardly surprising that I'm willing to opine on this issue where I lack data.
- tarere 5y ago
  >"Is this "mostly" qualifier not the dangerous front end of misinformation and vaccine hesitancy? " I do not understand. HN forum are places where "question everything" should be the norm, especially about science, and more especially about health when so much money is at stake. It seems we are in a religious quest, with virtue signaling signs everywhere, to laudate the vaccine COVID-19 miracle. Everything is "magic". Somehow one could make a parallel with the state of the economy and the stock market. We are printing our way to prosperity as we are saving the world with "methode Coué" and of course brutal coercition (mandatory vaccination at state level). What part of "you can not buy time" don't you understand ? You may throw billions, no, trillions, quadrillons, bazillions to all the Silicon Valleys startups and brains to developp a vaccine in a matter of months ; but you can not buy a 3, 5, 10 years study with this money. You can't even buy one month or one second, you just have to wait, this is life and bio-trans-human thinking still can't and never will overcome nature, space and time. So you might be "mostly" confident about the vaccine, I would say that this is the absolute maximum optimism best case scenario adjective you can use. Moderna, Pfizer sure are, "risk big, win big". But we'll have to wait a few years more to completely assert something like "safe and effective" for the COVID vaccines, that is not a fact anybody can deny.

adolph 5y ago

don't replicate != fraudulent I'm mostly confident in the COVID vaccines <- Is this "mostly" qualifier not the dangerous front end of misinformation and vaccine hesitancy?

faeriechangling 5y ago
I've got both vaccines especially early for my age group (clinical vulnerability) and I've been lobbying my vaccinated peers to at least get one dose, so apparently not. I say "mostly confident" because we have literally zero data of effects after 3 years and can only make inferences, and it's foolish to feign knowledge you do not have to avoid being called "hesitant", but my lack of confidence does not make me hesitate to recommend the vaccine. I also lack knowledge of long term effects of COVID itself which may in fact be worse than the long term effects of any vaccine given COVID does most of what the vaccines do plus extra nasty stuff.
- adolph 5y ago
  You are recommending something over nothing despite not being confident in the data about your recommendation? Which vaccines were in "both vaccines?" An mRNA and J&J, or just both administrations of a two-shot mRNA vaccine?
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > You are recommending something over nothing despite not being confident in the data about your recommendation? (Not OP but) Yes. Reasoning despite uncertainty is entirely possible; if you want a mathematical formalism, look into Bayesian statistics.
    - adolph 5y ago
      I don’t think Laplace would call reasoning without data (the commenter’s avowed position) Bayesian.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Zero data of the effects after three years. Plenty of data about the effects after one. It's not “reasoning without data”; it's reasoning without as much data as one would have liked. Are you doing this on purpose?
        adolph 5y ago
        The commenter did not say the results of one year were under consideration. They described a state of recommendation without information. Besides, March to July isn’t even half a year for phase 3 trials. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04811664 https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04811664
        faeriechangling 5y ago
        I did mention inferences. You seem to be concerned that I don't maintain a state of complete agnosticism in any matter which I lack data for, but it's really hard to do so in practice in a world of distinct choices. Most everybody will either get vaccinated or not get vaccinated and at least have made an implicit prediction about the future. Since I was pressured into making that choice it seems hardly surprising that I'm willing to opine on this issue where I lack data.
tarere 5y ago
>"Is this "mostly" qualifier not the dangerous front end of misinformation and vaccine hesitancy? " I do not understand. HN forum are places where "question everything" should be the norm, especially about science, and more especially about health when so much money is at stake. It seems we are in a religious quest, with virtue signaling signs everywhere, to laudate the vaccine COVID-19 miracle. Everything is "magic". Somehow one could make a parallel with the state of the economy and the stock market. We are printing our way to prosperity as we are saving the world with "methode Coué" and of course brutal coercition (mandatory vaccination at state level). What part of "you can not buy time" don't you understand ? You may throw billions, no, trillions, quadrillons, bazillions to all the Silicon Valleys startups and brains to developp a vaccine in a matter of months ; but you can not buy a 3, 5, 10 years study with this money. You can't even buy one month or one second, you just have to wait, this is life and bio-trans-human thinking still can't and never will overcome nature, space and time. So you might be "mostly" confident about the vaccine, I would say that this is the absolute maximum optimism best case scenario adjective you can use. Moderna, Pfizer sure are, "risk big, win big". But we'll have to wait a few years more to completely assert something like "safe and effective" for the COVID vaccines, that is not a fact anybody can deny.