6 ms·

Well, at least there is one country willing to take this seriously.

by Akaahn 5y ago

you-liquidated 5y ago
Most western countries and especially the press have a "can't say anything negative about the vaccine even if true because it will undermine it" approach. Of course, they don't realize that it is exactly this attitude which fuels anti-vaxxer propaganda.
- detaro 5y ago
  These side effects have been headline news in most western countries, have caused EU-wide official warnings about them being distributed and a bunch of western countries have made changes to vaccination schedules because of them. But sure, so very suppressed negative knowledge...
- IkmoIkmo 5y ago
  On the contrary, I see most western media continue to host 'let's hear both sides of the story' type forums on their talkshows and interviewee lists, when one side are medical experts, and the other side are frankly a bunch of idiots. It's not much different to teaching creationism in biology class next to evolutionary theory. In this case it's not because of some big conspiracy, but simply because this type of reporting generates clicks and views much more so than inviting a bunch of medical researchers to present tables full of data on-air.
  - you-liquidated 5y ago
    > It's not much different to teaching creationism in biology class next to evolutionary theory. I have news for you. 2000 scientists and biologists from NZ support the introduction of teaching of Maori creation myths in school along evolution theory: > More than 2,000 people, including numerous prominent academics and other public figures, have put their name to an open letter pushing back at a group of academics that claimed Māori knowledge was “not science”: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/30-07-2021/live-updates-july-30-pay-talks-resume-as-nurses-reject-latest-offer https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/30-07-2021/live-updates-ju... https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/12/03/ways-of-knowing-new-zealand-pushes-to-have-indigenous-knowledge-mythology-taught-on-parity-with-modern-science-in-science-class/ https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/12/03/ways-of-knowing-ne...
endemic 5y ago
Haven’t we known about these side effects for a while? I don’t think it’s been a secret.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  Yet when you mention that the vaccine has side effects you get banned from various social media venues, and they stick a "WHO COVID19 info" propaganda announcement below for good measure.
QuarterReptile 5y ago
Whether by 'this' you mean vaccine side effects or free scientific inquiry barely matters. It is refreshing to see.
- Ambolia 5y ago
  I don't understand how we don't have a clearly set control group in every single country where there are vaccination programs. Instead of that it's all anecdotes about Romania cases going up because of low vaccination rates (until the cases started to go down, then it disappeared from the news).
  - gizmo686 5y ago
    Ethics. It is routine to terminate a medical trial early when the results are so clear that you know you are harming the participants by continuing; wheather that harm is by negative effects on the treatment group, or depriving the control group of effective treatment. Further, once you have an effective treatment, placebo controlled trials become unethical. You must compare your new treatment to the current standard of care.
    - Ambolia 5y ago
      That seems like a terrible idea for a rushed treatment during a global pandemic. If anything we need as much accurate and scientifically sound information as possible, if we want to make sensible decisions.
      - drukenemo 5y ago
        However you will probably be downvoted here and shutdown somewhere else just by stating this reasonable fact. The times we live in…
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      > Ethics. It is routine to terminate a medical trial early when the results are so clear that you know you are harming the participants by continuing; Except that plenty of people already decided they don't want to vaccinate, so why not to ask them to participate? Of course a double-blind study would be unethical. > once you have an effective treatment, placebo controlled trials become unethical But this is a vaccine, not a treatment. And given the scale of vaccination, wouldn't it make sense to have a control group for analyzing long-term effects? Yes, I heard many times that long-term effects are "unlikely," but the tiny possibility becomes significant at scale.
detaro 5y ago
plenty countries have given out warnings and adapted vaccination protocols because of this already, so I'm not sure what you are talking about?
- RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
  He's talking about the mass deception by crony-capitalists with hands on the controls of the us government. Acknowledgment of only one opinion of truth has been rather blatant here in the states.
  - detaro 5y ago
    You've suffered some pretty bad deception if you think this is somehow news only Japan is taking serious and everybody else is suppressing, yes.
  - slowmovintarget 5y ago
    There are many opinions. Not all opinions carry, or should carry the same weight. Phrased more specifically, not all opinions should gain the same credence. For example, we know the vaccines have side-effects, including these inflammation issues in young men (biologically male). We also know that unvaccinated people who actually contract COVID-19 and suffer a severe course (hospitalization) are anywhere from two to four times more likely to die within a year of hospitalization from all-cause mortality than those who've been vaccinated or never contracted COVID-19. Given what we know, Bayesian reasoning should have us update our credence in the opinion that says you should get vaccinated, that you should wear masks indoors, and that you should observe rules of physical distancing if possible. That these reasons happen to line up with crony-capitalist agendas is sad but coincidental. My opinion (attach whatever credence you like to it) is that this simply means we are being drastically overcharged for the vaccines, but still need them.
    - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
      > Not all opinions carry, or should carry the same weight. In a proper capitalist economy, they should, and every consumer should be free to evaluate every opinion independently. I'm glad that I can buy the holy bible, the selfish gene, the communist manifesto, and 1984 all within the same bookstore. My argument is that reputation and credence needs to be decentralized. A group of extremists should be allowed to give credence to whatever thoughts they wish, but they should not be silenced for having opinions that disagree with the state. I don't doubt the science, that getting as many people vaccinated is the better solution in a classic trolley problem for saving the most lives in a pandemic, but silencing of alternative thought is far more problematic for society. If people don't want to take a magic pill that can prevent them from dying, it should not be the state's job to shove it down peoples throats. If people don't want to believe the world is round, the state should not ban books saying the earth is flat. Opinions regardless of whether or not they are right should be allowed to exist. At the end of the day the responsibility of determining truth should be on the consumer. > That these reasons happen to line up with crony-capitalist agendas is sad but coincidental. What I'm saying is that it should not be in the state's agenda to align with the agendas of the highest bidder. It may be coincidental, but even you as a statistics person should be able to see that these coincidences happen far more than it should. I'm not arguing against science. I'm trying to get people like you to understand that crony-capitalism degrades the quality of the health service sector as well as the operation of the economy, and that trading away that freedom of speech to control the actions of others is detrimental to society.
IkmoIkmo 5y ago
As far as I know, virtually every serious medical forum, whether it's pharmaceutical companies, health ministries, WHO, groups of hospitals, universities etc are constantly researching, monitoring and reporting on side-effects and taking this very seriously. What makes you say they aren't? Japan's health ministry just reported a 15 per million, or 0.0015% risk of inflammation when taking Pfizer. This doesn't change their policy position, which is to recommend and urge as many people as possible to get the vaccine, as the risks of contracting covid and its effects far outweigh this 0.0015% sideeffect risk.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  > side-effects and taking this very seriously. What makes you say they aren't? because they are advocating for injecting 5 years old who have literally a negative benefit-risk ratio from the vaccine. You don't smell corruption much yet?
  - IkmoIkmo 5y ago
    My reading so far has been different. Indeed children are far less likely to be at risk, yet several dozen kids have died due to Covid already, and a larger group has complications from long-covid. The studies in contrast show no major side effects of this scale in children, certainly not deadly side effects. To link this to corruption is a radical idea that requires proof. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-vaccine-for-ages-5-to-11 https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-vaccine-for-ages-5-t... Then there's a public health discussion that goes beyond the individual. Even if a measure has no benefit to an individual, but large benefit to the public, and very rare side effects, it makes total sense from a public policy perspective to encourage the measure. Taxes for example are a direct negative measure for individuals, but a very beneficial public measure that will in turn indirectly benefits individuals. I'll grant you that you can argue against making measures mandatory that are negative to the individual but positive to the public, but to encourage it as a voluntary measure of course makes total sense, and that's all the CDC has so far done for ages 5-11. Given the exponential pandemic potential of Covid-19, one cannot simply exclude entire groups of people (e.g. young people) from access to vaccines and also expect Covid-19 to be mitigated as a public health disaster. Nor can you in the case of excluding a large group (young people), expect new and more dangerous variants to stop popping up. That's a public health matter, which indirectly also translates to negative effects on children's lives, e.g. parents who are stick or die, parents who lose jobs/businesses/income, kids who need to be homeschooled and fall behind academically and socially etc. That is why it is crucial for there to be wide public access to vaccines for all who wish to take it, as long as it is safe. These vaccines were tested and were found to be safe. The data from the study is public, I haven't seen anyone credible argue otherwise.

Well, at least there is one country willing to take this seriously.

by Akaahn 5y ago

Well, at least there is one country willing to take this seriously.

Most western countries and especially the press have a "can't say anything negative about the vaccine even if true because it will undermine it" approach. Of course, they don't realize that it is exactly this attitude which fuels anti-vaxxer propaganda.

detaro 5y ago
These side effects have been headline news in most western countries, have caused EU-wide official warnings about them being distributed and a bunch of western countries have made changes to vaccination schedules because of them. But sure, so very suppressed negative knowledge...
IkmoIkmo 5y ago
On the contrary, I see most western media continue to host 'let's hear both sides of the story' type forums on their talkshows and interviewee lists, when one side are medical experts, and the other side are frankly a bunch of idiots. It's not much different to teaching creationism in biology class next to evolutionary theory. In this case it's not because of some big conspiracy, but simply because this type of reporting generates clicks and views much more so than inviting a bunch of medical researchers to present tables full of data on-air.
- you-liquidated 5y ago
  > It's not much different to teaching creationism in biology class next to evolutionary theory. I have news for you. 2000 scientists and biologists from NZ support the introduction of teaching of Maori creation myths in school along evolution theory: > More than 2,000 people, including numerous prominent academics and other public figures, have put their name to an open letter pushing back at a group of academics that claimed Māori knowledge was “not science”: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/30-07-2021/live-updates-july-30-pay-talks-resume-as-nurses-reject-latest-offer https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/30-07-2021/live-updates-ju... https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/12/03/ways-of-knowing-new-zealand-pushes-to-have-indigenous-knowledge-mythology-taught-on-parity-with-modern-science-in-science-class/ https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2021/12/03/ways-of-knowing-ne...

endemic 5y ago

Haven’t we known about these side effects for a while? I don’t think it’s been a secret.

ekianjo 5y ago
Yet when you mention that the vaccine has side effects you get banned from various social media venues, and they stick a "WHO COVID19 info" propaganda announcement below for good measure.

QuarterReptile 5y ago

Whether by 'this' you mean vaccine side effects or free scientific inquiry barely matters. It is refreshing to see.

Ambolia 5y ago
I don't understand how we don't have a clearly set control group in every single country where there are vaccination programs. Instead of that it's all anecdotes about Romania cases going up because of low vaccination rates (until the cases started to go down, then it disappeared from the news).
- gizmo686 5y ago
  Ethics. It is routine to terminate a medical trial early when the results are so clear that you know you are harming the participants by continuing; wheather that harm is by negative effects on the treatment group, or depriving the control group of effective treatment. Further, once you have an effective treatment, placebo controlled trials become unethical. You must compare your new treatment to the current standard of care.
  - Ambolia 5y ago
    That seems like a terrible idea for a rushed treatment during a global pandemic. If anything we need as much accurate and scientifically sound information as possible, if we want to make sensible decisions.
    - drukenemo 5y ago
      However you will probably be downvoted here and shutdown somewhere else just by stating this reasonable fact. The times we live in…
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    > Ethics. It is routine to terminate a medical trial early when the results are so clear that you know you are harming the participants by continuing; Except that plenty of people already decided they don't want to vaccinate, so why not to ask them to participate? Of course a double-blind study would be unethical. > once you have an effective treatment, placebo controlled trials become unethical But this is a vaccine, not a treatment. And given the scale of vaccination, wouldn't it make sense to have a control group for analyzing long-term effects? Yes, I heard many times that long-term effects are "unlikely," but the tiny possibility becomes significant at scale.

detaro 5y ago

plenty countries have given out warnings and adapted vaccination protocols because of this already, so I'm not sure what you are talking about?

RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
He's talking about the mass deception by crony-capitalists with hands on the controls of the us government. Acknowledgment of only one opinion of truth has been rather blatant here in the states.
- detaro 5y ago
  You've suffered some pretty bad deception if you think this is somehow news only Japan is taking serious and everybody else is suppressing, yes.
- slowmovintarget 5y ago
  There are many opinions. Not all opinions carry, or should carry the same weight. Phrased more specifically, not all opinions should gain the same credence. For example, we know the vaccines have side-effects, including these inflammation issues in young men (biologically male). We also know that unvaccinated people who actually contract COVID-19 and suffer a severe course (hospitalization) are anywhere from two to four times more likely to die within a year of hospitalization from all-cause mortality than those who've been vaccinated or never contracted COVID-19. Given what we know, Bayesian reasoning should have us update our credence in the opinion that says you should get vaccinated, that you should wear masks indoors, and that you should observe rules of physical distancing if possible. That these reasons happen to line up with crony-capitalist agendas is sad but coincidental. My opinion (attach whatever credence you like to it) is that this simply means we are being drastically overcharged for the vaccines, but still need them.
  - RedBeetDeadpool 5y ago
    > Not all opinions carry, or should carry the same weight. In a proper capitalist economy, they should, and every consumer should be free to evaluate every opinion independently. I'm glad that I can buy the holy bible, the selfish gene, the communist manifesto, and 1984 all within the same bookstore. My argument is that reputation and credence needs to be decentralized. A group of extremists should be allowed to give credence to whatever thoughts they wish, but they should not be silenced for having opinions that disagree with the state. I don't doubt the science, that getting as many people vaccinated is the better solution in a classic trolley problem for saving the most lives in a pandemic, but silencing of alternative thought is far more problematic for society. If people don't want to take a magic pill that can prevent them from dying, it should not be the state's job to shove it down peoples throats. If people don't want to believe the world is round, the state should not ban books saying the earth is flat. Opinions regardless of whether or not they are right should be allowed to exist. At the end of the day the responsibility of determining truth should be on the consumer. > That these reasons happen to line up with crony-capitalist agendas is sad but coincidental. What I'm saying is that it should not be in the state's agenda to align with the agendas of the highest bidder. It may be coincidental, but even you as a statistics person should be able to see that these coincidences happen far more than it should. I'm not arguing against science. I'm trying to get people like you to understand that crony-capitalism degrades the quality of the health service sector as well as the operation of the economy, and that trading away that freedom of speech to control the actions of others is detrimental to society.

IkmoIkmo 5y ago

As far as I know, virtually every serious medical forum, whether it's pharmaceutical companies, health ministries, WHO, groups of hospitals, universities etc are constantly researching, monitoring and reporting on side-effects and taking this very seriously. What makes you say they aren't? Japan's health ministry just reported a 15 per million, or 0.0015% risk of inflammation when taking Pfizer. This doesn't change their policy position, which is to recommend and urge as many people as possible to get the vaccine, as the risks of contracting covid and its effects far outweigh this 0.0015% sideeffect risk.

ekianjo 5y ago
> side-effects and taking this very seriously. What makes you say they aren't? because they are advocating for injecting 5 years old who have literally a negative benefit-risk ratio from the vaccine. You don't smell corruption much yet?
- IkmoIkmo 5y ago
  My reading so far has been different. Indeed children are far less likely to be at risk, yet several dozen kids have died due to Covid already, and a larger group has complications from long-covid. The studies in contrast show no major side effects of this scale in children, certainly not deadly side effects. To link this to corruption is a radical idea that requires proof. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-vaccine-for-ages-5-to-11 https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-vaccine-for-ages-5-t... Then there's a public health discussion that goes beyond the individual. Even if a measure has no benefit to an individual, but large benefit to the public, and very rare side effects, it makes total sense from a public policy perspective to encourage the measure. Taxes for example are a direct negative measure for individuals, but a very beneficial public measure that will in turn indirectly benefits individuals. I'll grant you that you can argue against making measures mandatory that are negative to the individual but positive to the public, but to encourage it as a voluntary measure of course makes total sense, and that's all the CDC has so far done for ages 5-11. Given the exponential pandemic potential of Covid-19, one cannot simply exclude entire groups of people (e.g. young people) from access to vaccines and also expect Covid-19 to be mitigated as a public health disaster. Nor can you in the case of excluding a large group (young people), expect new and more dangerous variants to stop popping up. That's a public health matter, which indirectly also translates to negative effects on children's lives, e.g. parents who are stick or die, parents who lose jobs/businesses/income, kids who need to be homeschooled and fall behind academically and socially etc. That is why it is crucial for there to be wide public access to vaccines for all who wish to take it, as long as it is safe. These vaccines were tested and were found to be safe. The data from the study is public, I haven't seen anyone credible argue otherwise.