4 ms·
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said the vaccines are less efficacious than initially reported (~94% decrease in the probability of disease incide
by muaytimbo 5y ago
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said the vaccines are less efficacious than initially reported (~94% decrease in the probability of disease incidence). I just don't understand how you square that with your conclusion, just keep getting boosted some indeterminate number of times by vaccines we know are 1) not as good as advertised, and 2) seem to be providing less and less protection over time as new variants emerge.
The best protection based on my knowledge of biochemistry would be natural immunity to the current variant in circulation.
- dekhn 5y agoI give that recommendation for the same reason I floss my teeth when asking my children do so; it's modelling good behavior to establish life-long health habits. It's not that I think flossing is particularly effective at countering gum disease (compared to just brushing alone), but it's the mainstream position and I think it's better to model "follow mainstream science" than "repeatedly question the medical establishment without data". I watch the news and literature for occasional reviews of flossing and I would update my parenting if warranted. The clear public health trend seems to be that we're going to see 2-3 revs of the vaccine booster per year, not that we're going to depend on natural immunity. I think it is almost certain that most COVID deaths were front-loaded and this will look almost exactly like flu vaccines in 3 years.
- muaytimbo 5y agoIf I had kids I think I would encourage the exact opposite behavior. As a scientist by training I have been trained to be skeptical, question everything, and do my own research. I would hope to pass that along to my children. I also think you've set up a straw man to knockdown when you equate being skeptical to "question[ing] the medical establishment without data". There's no shortage of data out there on and around this topic. You can search on PubMed and literally read for weeks.
- dekhn 5y agoI'm a skeptic, but it gets in the way of pedagogy, for example we often don't teach high school students how friction really works (according to the most up to date theories). Instead they get a few basic equations that describe a much simpler model (and which fall down if you try to make some predictions). Certainly I teach my children to be mildly skeptical, but I see no value in them questioning flossing until they're about 16 and can start to read and argue for themselves. And even then, I don't think most people are capable to read primary literature or review articles. As to searching on pubmed and reading for weeks: that's the problem! The vast majority of people are not qualified to read the scientific literature. You need extensive training to learn how to read literature and evaluate it properly. This is especially true for medical/biology research. Learning to be proficient in that world (medical biology/public health literature) is the price of entry for being effective at changing policies. The Skeptics don't always win.
- muaytimbo 5y agoSkeptics shouldn’t always win, but at least they have convinced themselves one way or the other. Agree to disagree but I’m all for people reading and researching on their own. Nobody understands the literature the first go, that happens with time.