3 ms·

> Any questions? I'm not timr, but I share a lot of his concerns, so I'll try to answer. I think your model of how he is thinking is probably wrong. Some peo

by nkurz 5y ago

> Any questions? I'm not timr, but I share a lot of his concerns, so I'll try to answer. I think your model of how he is thinking is probably wrong. Some people (including me) care tremendously about the truth of an argument, independent of whether making that argument leads to a desirable social outcome. His "agenda" is likely a strong philosophical belief that it's more important to base policy on a solid scientific foundation than to reach an apparently preferred conclusion, because this is more likely to reliably reach a long term positive result. At least, that's what it feels like internally for me. Despite your claims, the situation is not simple. Take this paper for instance. At this point, I'm pretty convinced that it is irredeemably flawed. That is, while boosters are probably a good idea for most people, I don't think it will be the case that greater than 1% of the doubly vaccinated but unboosted population will die of Covid in the next year. I think there are methodological problems with their approach that make their specific conclusions mostly meaningless. Unfortunately, despite these flaws, this is probably a higher quality study than most that are being relied upon to make policy. For context, understand that I've been laid out in bed for most of the last week recovering from my recent Covid booster. I still believe that for me, taking a Covid booster probably was a better choice than not taking one. I don't currently believe that it produces the best health outcomes for a 14 year old boy, but I'm open to the possibility that it's best for society as a whole to put young males at slightly greater risk for the benefit of the rest of society. Please consider that you might be overconfident in how obvious the answers are.

dlemire 5y ago
It is rational to doubt governments as history shows.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Of course, this is true generally. But, as I said in my other comment, when it comes to drug approvals, the FDA is probably the least politicized government agency we have, and they have an amazing track record of not approving drugs that ultimately end up causing more harm than good. It's also rational to hold a realistic prior, so, you should take all this into account. Mistrusting the FDA on this is literally irrational.
timr 5y ago
> His "agenda" is likely a strong philosophical belief that it's more important to base policy on a solid scientific foundation than to reach an apparently preferred conclusion, because this is more likely to reliably reach a long term positive result. At least, that's what it feels like internally for me. I don't disagree...but I think it's much more concrete than this. At the scale of 330M people (let alone 7 billion), tiny risks matter. The OP simply cannot see past the emotion of the debate to the idea that even a few hundred-thousandths of a percent of additional mortality risk means that 100 people will die in the US. If those 100 people were otherwise healthy and at no risk from Covid, that's a disaster. If the OP wants to take the tiny risk, that's fine, but it's a different matter to encourage other people to do it without evidence.
actually_a_dog 5y ago
It is literally that simple. That thinking has already been done by the FDA when they approved the vaccine and when they approved the boosters. The FDA is very conservative when it comes to approving new drugs and therapies (perhaps too conservative, but that's another comment entirely). If you're not going to trust the FDA, we don't have anything to say to each other, really, because that's what the FDA is for. They have a great track record on these things, with very, very few drug recalls happening due to unforeseen side effects. As far as government agencies go, when it comes to drug approval, the FDA is probably the most trustworthy and least politicized government agency we've got. They've examined the data on myocarditis and recently approved boosters for people over 16. They haven't yet approved it for 14 year olds, so, yes, that is an open question. But, it's one which they're working to answer, and which it's essentially part of their mandate to answer.

by nkurz 5y ago

dlemire 5y ago

It is rational to doubt governments as history shows.

actually_a_dog 5y ago
Of course, this is true generally. But, as I said in my other comment, when it comes to drug approvals, the FDA is probably the least politicized government agency we have, and they have an amazing track record of not approving drugs that ultimately end up causing more harm than good. It's also rational to hold a realistic prior, so, you should take all this into account. Mistrusting the FDA on this is literally irrational.

timr 5y ago

> His "agenda" is likely a strong philosophical belief that it's more important to base policy on a solid scientific foundation than to reach an apparently preferred conclusion, because this is more likely to reliably reach a long term positive result. At least, that's what it feels like internally for me. I don't disagree...but I think it's much more concrete than this. At the scale of 330M people (let alone 7 billion), tiny risks matter. The OP simply cannot see past the emotion of the debate to the idea that even a few hundred-thousandths of a percent of additional mortality risk means that 100 people will die in the US. If those 100 people were otherwise healthy and at no risk from Covid, that's a disaster. If the OP wants to take the tiny risk, that's fine, but it's a different matter to encourage other people to do it without evidence.

actually_a_dog 5y ago

It is literally that simple. That thinking has already been done by the FDA when they approved the vaccine and when they approved the boosters. The FDA is very conservative when it comes to approving new drugs and therapies (perhaps too conservative, but that's another comment entirely). If you're not going to trust the FDA, we don't have anything to say to each other, really, because that's what the FDA is for. They have a great track record on these things, with very, very few drug recalls happening due to unforeseen side effects. As far as government agencies go, when it comes to drug approval, the FDA is probably the most trustworthy and least politicized government agency we've got. They've examined the data on myocarditis and recently approved boosters for people over 16. They haven't yet approved it for 14 year olds, so, yes, that is an open question. But, it's one which they're working to answer, and which it's essentially part of their mandate to answer.