5 ms·

sounds like another policy/politicized blanket statement not based on science. Have they tested levels of anti-bodies? Why is Israel with its early high vaccina

sounds like another policy/politicized blanket statement not based on science. Have they tested levels of anti-bodies? Why is Israel with its early high vaccinations levels doing third shots?

incrudible 5y ago
> Why is Israel with its early high vaccinations levels doing third shots? Desperation. This is a case of politicians overpromising on something they could not deliver. Science will have to take a back seat.
- oezi 5y ago
  Efficacy of Pfizer Biontech wears down after 6 months. So because they were early, they are the first to need boosters.
542354234235 5y ago
>sounds like another policy/politicized blanket statement not based on science. Or, it is public health advice based on science, looking at what they believe would be the most effective policy globally. They aren’t saying it does or doesn’t affect the level of antibodies. They aren’t arguing that it is effective or ineffective at boosting an individual’s immunity. You seem to be fundamentally confused about what they are talking about. >“Even if boosting were eventually shown to decrease the medium-term risk of serious disease, current vaccine supplies could save more lives if used in previously unvaccinated populations than if used as boosters in vaccinated populations”
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  I’m just not sure what it means to say that global policy is based on science. They didn’t run an observational study a sample of other globes to see which decisions correlated with better performance; they used their scientifically-informed expertise to a degree, but they also made a series of judgment calls about what policy goals we should have and the likely consequences of various actions on geopolitics. Why are vaccine experts the right people to make those calls?
  - 542354234235 5y ago
    >they used their scientifically-informed expertise to a degree, but they also made a series of judgment calls about what policy goals we should have and the likely consequences of various actions on geopolitics. Yes, that is exactly what they did, specifically because we don’t have other globes lying around that we can run randomized controlled trials on global events. Just because we don’t have perfect data on something, doesn’t mean that expert opinion based on detailed information is no more valid or valuable than any other opinion. >Why are vaccine experts the right people to make those calls? They aren’t making a call. They are providing their expert opinion in vaccines and vaccinations, on a topic related to vaccines and vaccinations, to inform policy makers that do make those calls. It is for policy makers to consult various data sources and experts in related fields to make an evidence based and evidence informed decision.
- AzzieElbab 5y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-cases.h... looking at the map above tells me people in rich western countries are dying from covid at 2-8x rates of people in the developing countries with some exceptions(Brazil, Peru, Mexico). How on earth do you make any morality based policy calls based on this data?
  - 542354234235 5y ago
    >How on earth do you make any morality based policy calls based on this data? Well, you make those calls by looking more deeply into data than a country level map. In the US, the majority of states are at or near the point where vaccine supply is higher than demand. [1] The people that wanted vaccines got vaccines and the majority of the unvaccinated are that way by choice. We also know that over 98% of covid hospitalizations are those very same unvaccinated [2], showing that even with breakthrough infections, the vaccine is still very effective at preventing “serious” cases of covid. At The same time, we have a 25% reduction in the estimated available vaccines worldwide through the end of the year and poor countries that are reliant on vaccine aid delivered by rich nations have received a fraction of what was pledged. [3] Giving boosters to people in rich countries that are already highly protected and not at risk of significant illness and death while failing to send aid to provide any protection at all to the most vulnerable population is not exactly a morality based policy. Using vaccination rates of people that have access to vaccines and choose not to get them (and are dying based off that choice) as justification for this is ignorant at best, immoral in itself at worst. [1] https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/supply-vs-demand-which-states-are-reaching-their-covid-19-vaccine-tipping-points/ https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/supply-vs-demand-which-stat... [2] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/unvaccinated-covid-patients-cost-the-u-s-health-system-billions-of-dollars/ https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/unvaccinated-covid... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-08/global-vaccine-program-covax-cuts-2021-supply-forecast https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-08/global-va...
    - AzzieElbab 5y ago
      Why would you assume that vaccine hesitancy is uniquely American and immutable phenomena? Why would you assume 2 shots of vaccine is enough for life when a new variant pops up every month? As an official, how would you pick a country to send vaccines to when most of the world has lower infections and death rates? How would you ration your vaccines when FDA may authorize them for younger kids any day? What about vaccine mandates? Those are supposed to up the demand, right?

sounds like another policy/politicized blanket statement not based on science. Have they tested levels of anti-bodies? Why is Israel with its early high vaccinations levels doing third shots?

incrudible 5y ago

> Why is Israel with its early high vaccinations levels doing third shots? Desperation. This is a case of politicians overpromising on something they could not deliver. Science will have to take a back seat.

oezi 5y ago
Efficacy of Pfizer Biontech wears down after 6 months. So because they were early, they are the first to need boosters.

542354234235 5y ago

>sounds like another policy/politicized blanket statement not based on science. Or, it is public health advice based on science, looking at what they believe would be the most effective policy globally. They aren’t saying it does or doesn’t affect the level of antibodies. They aren’t arguing that it is effective or ineffective at boosting an individual’s immunity. You seem to be fundamentally confused about what they are talking about. >“Even if boosting were eventually shown to decrease the medium-term risk of serious disease, current vaccine supplies could save more lives if used in previously unvaccinated populations than if used as boosters in vaccinated populations”

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
I’m just not sure what it means to say that global policy is based on science. They didn’t run an observational study a sample of other globes to see which decisions correlated with better performance; they used their scientifically-informed expertise to a degree, but they also made a series of judgment calls about what policy goals we should have and the likely consequences of various actions on geopolitics. Why are vaccine experts the right people to make those calls?
- 542354234235 5y ago
  >they used their scientifically-informed expertise to a degree, but they also made a series of judgment calls about what policy goals we should have and the likely consequences of various actions on geopolitics. Yes, that is exactly what they did, specifically because we don’t have other globes lying around that we can run randomized controlled trials on global events. Just because we don’t have perfect data on something, doesn’t mean that expert opinion based on detailed information is no more valid or valuable than any other opinion. >Why are vaccine experts the right people to make those calls? They aren’t making a call. They are providing their expert opinion in vaccines and vaccinations, on a topic related to vaccines and vaccinations, to inform policy makers that do make those calls. It is for policy makers to consult various data sources and experts in related fields to make an evidence based and evidence informed decision.
AzzieElbab 5y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-cases.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-cases.h... looking at the map above tells me people in rich western countries are dying from covid at 2-8x rates of people in the developing countries with some exceptions(Brazil, Peru, Mexico). How on earth do you make any morality based policy calls based on this data?
- 542354234235 5y ago
  >How on earth do you make any morality based policy calls based on this data? Well, you make those calls by looking more deeply into data than a country level map. In the US, the majority of states are at or near the point where vaccine supply is higher than demand. [1] The people that wanted vaccines got vaccines and the majority of the unvaccinated are that way by choice. We also know that over 98% of covid hospitalizations are those very same unvaccinated [2], showing that even with breakthrough infections, the vaccine is still very effective at preventing “serious” cases of covid. At The same time, we have a 25% reduction in the estimated available vaccines worldwide through the end of the year and poor countries that are reliant on vaccine aid delivered by rich nations have received a fraction of what was pledged. [3] Giving boosters to people in rich countries that are already highly protected and not at risk of significant illness and death while failing to send aid to provide any protection at all to the most vulnerable population is not exactly a morality based policy. Using vaccination rates of people that have access to vaccines and choose not to get them (and are dying based off that choice) as justification for this is ignorant at best, immoral in itself at worst. [1] https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/supply-vs-demand-which-states-are-reaching-their-covid-19-vaccine-tipping-points/ https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/supply-vs-demand-which-stat... [2] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/unvaccinated-covid-patients-cost-the-u-s-health-system-billions-of-dollars/ https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/unvaccinated-covid... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-08/global-vaccine-program-covax-cuts-2021-supply-forecast https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-08/global-va...
  - AzzieElbab 5y ago
    Why would you assume that vaccine hesitancy is uniquely American and immutable phenomena? Why would you assume 2 shots of vaccine is enough for life when a new variant pops up every month? As an official, how would you pick a country to send vaccines to when most of the world has lower infections and death rates? How would you ration your vaccines when FDA may authorize them for younger kids any day? What about vaccine mandates? Those are supposed to up the demand, right?