3 ms·

> being vaccinated might even make you more likely to be infected. That would certainly seem unlikely. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated gro

> being vaccinated might even make you more likely to be infected. That would certainly seem unlikely. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated groups having different behavior. Which is somewhat likely, but then you're not really comparing the effects of the vaccine anymore. Everything I've seen has shown the obvious, fewer and less serious cases.

native_samples 5y ago
That would certainly seem unlikely It's actually a proven matter of fact, so it's not really up for debate about whether it's likely or not. It happened already. The few countries that publish infection rates by vaccine status all show the same thing: the vaccinated get infected with COVID at much higher rates than the unvaccinated and this has been getting worse with time. England, Denmark, New Zealand all show this. There may be other countries by now. Most countries simply don't publish this basic statistic at all, which is all you need to know about the integrity of public health. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated groups having different behavior No, negative effectiveness has happened before with vaccines and there are biological pathways via which it can happen. In particular the COVID mRNA vaccines are immunosuppressant. This was known by Pfizer before approval but not mentioned anywhere - it came out during their document dumps. OAS/imprinting is another very likely candidate.
IdEntities 5y ago
> That would certainly seem unlikely. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated groups having different behavior. No, other possibilities which have been observed with other pathogens are Original Antigenic Sin (i.e. perhaps targeting the spike protein from the now-extinct Wuhan strain gets the immune system "stuck in a rut" with a less optimal response) or Antibody Dependent Enhancement. Not to say that these definitely are occurring in the case of SARS-CoV-2, but even Fauci acknowledged the possibility of disease enhancement before the vaccines were rolled out. A good article on the UK vaccinated/unvaccinated data, which was pulled when it no longer flattered the vaccines: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-will-hide-vaccinated-cases-and https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-will-hide-vaccinated-ca...
- renaudg 5y ago
  To anyone else wondering : that "good article" comes from a notorious antivaxxer : https://twitter.com/ichudov https://twitter.com/ichudov
  - native_samples 5y ago
    You're making a circular argument. Anyone who looks at the UK data showing negative effectiveness cannot avoid being "anti vax" because if vaccines make COVID more prevalent rather than less, then the cost:benefit ratio cannot possibly be positive. In your construction, actually observing published government statistics and acting rationally on it automatically makes someone a "notorious antivaxxer". It's ideology, not rationality.
    - renaudg 5y ago
      No, What I'm saying is that this guy is a run-of-the-mill antivaxxer, even outside Covid. Check his tweets and blog : he writes fallacious pieces against childhood vaccinations like : https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/florida-vaccine-hesitancy-reduced https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/florida-vaccine-hesitancy-... And no, he's not acting rationally. It may have the flavor of it at first glance, but the implications of what he says being true would invalidate large swathes of science. So is he a genius or a crank ? I don't have time to comb through and debunk every single claim (Brandolini's law !) but good old Occam's razor says he's a conspiracist crank who fallaciously massages data until it fits what he set out to prove. That is to say, an ideologue.
      - native_samples 5y ago
        Well, full marks for honesty I guess but aren't you just proving my point? You haven't read his article or engaged with his argument at all, but he must be a crank because you can't stomach the implications if he was right. A cursory inspection of the first few paragraphs shows that (a) it's about 2021 so definitely not "outside COVID" and (b) it's another example of what I was pointing out: he is looking at government data that looks pretty concerning and reacting to it in a rational way. Your only argument he's not rational is that "vast swathes" of science would be invalidated if he's right, therefore he must be a crank. That's not even an argument, is it? 1. Some of the biggest leaps forward in science have come from invalidation and correction of deeply fundamental science. That's why Einstein is famous. The potential to invalidate pre-existing scientific beliefs is pretty much a pre-condition for a study to be interesting. 2. Vaccine efficacy is a tiny sub-area of the overall scientific enterprise. If everything people believed about vaccines was disproven conclusively tomorrow that'd certainly be far less than 0.1% of all scientific knowledge. 3. Your heuristic is totally unable to correct handle or react to groupthink or bad incentives. The entire field of virology claimed that there was no possible way SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab and anyone who claimed it could was spreading conspiracy theories. Those same scientists were simultaneously writing private emails saying a lab escape was definitely possible and even looked likely. You were the sort of person who was successfully fooled by their conspiracy, and maybe still are. Fundamentally, your attitude here is poisonous to the search for truth that defines science to begin with. If you can't be bothered evaluating their arguments then don't express opinions on them.

native_samples 5y ago

That would certainly seem unlikely It's actually a proven matter of fact, so it's not really up for debate about whether it's likely or not. It happened already. The few countries that publish infection rates by vaccine status all show the same thing: the vaccinated get infected with COVID at much higher rates than the unvaccinated and this has been getting worse with time. England, Denmark, New Zealand all show this. There may be other countries by now. Most countries simply don't publish this basic statistic at all, which is all you need to know about the integrity of public health. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated groups having different behavior No, negative effectiveness has happened before with vaccines and there are biological pathways via which it can happen. In particular the COVID mRNA vaccines are immunosuppressant. This was known by Pfizer before approval but not mentioned anywhere - it came out during their document dumps. OAS/imprinting is another very likely candidate.

IdEntities 5y ago

> That would certainly seem unlikely. Really the only way that's possible is by vaccinated groups having different behavior. No, other possibilities which have been observed with other pathogens are Original Antigenic Sin (i.e. perhaps targeting the spike protein from the now-extinct Wuhan strain gets the immune system "stuck in a rut" with a less optimal response) or Antibody Dependent Enhancement. Not to say that these definitely are occurring in the case of SARS-CoV-2, but even Fauci acknowledged the possibility of disease enhancement before the vaccines were rolled out. A good article on the UK vaccinated/unvaccinated data, which was pulled when it no longer flattered the vaccines: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-will-hide-vaccinated-cases-and https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-will-hide-vaccinated-ca...

renaudg 5y ago
To anyone else wondering : that "good article" comes from a notorious antivaxxer : https://twitter.com/ichudov https://twitter.com/ichudov
- native_samples 5y ago
  You're making a circular argument. Anyone who looks at the UK data showing negative effectiveness cannot avoid being "anti vax" because if vaccines make COVID more prevalent rather than less, then the cost:benefit ratio cannot possibly be positive. In your construction, actually observing published government statistics and acting rationally on it automatically makes someone a "notorious antivaxxer". It's ideology, not rationality.
  - renaudg 5y ago
    No, What I'm saying is that this guy is a run-of-the-mill antivaxxer, even outside Covid. Check his tweets and blog : he writes fallacious pieces against childhood vaccinations like : https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/florida-vaccine-hesitancy-reduced https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/florida-vaccine-hesitancy-... And no, he's not acting rationally. It may have the flavor of it at first glance, but the implications of what he says being true would invalidate large swathes of science. So is he a genius or a crank ? I don't have time to comb through and debunk every single claim (Brandolini's law !) but good old Occam's razor says he's a conspiracist crank who fallaciously massages data until it fits what he set out to prove. That is to say, an ideologue.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      Well, full marks for honesty I guess but aren't you just proving my point? You haven't read his article or engaged with his argument at all, but he must be a crank because you can't stomach the implications if he was right. A cursory inspection of the first few paragraphs shows that (a) it's about 2021 so definitely not "outside COVID" and (b) it's another example of what I was pointing out: he is looking at government data that looks pretty concerning and reacting to it in a rational way. Your only argument he's not rational is that "vast swathes" of science would be invalidated if he's right, therefore he must be a crank. That's not even an argument, is it? 1. Some of the biggest leaps forward in science have come from invalidation and correction of deeply fundamental science. That's why Einstein is famous. The potential to invalidate pre-existing scientific beliefs is pretty much a pre-condition for a study to be interesting. 2. Vaccine efficacy is a tiny sub-area of the overall scientific enterprise. If everything people believed about vaccines was disproven conclusively tomorrow that'd certainly be far less than 0.1% of all scientific knowledge. 3. Your heuristic is totally unable to correct handle or react to groupthink or bad incentives. The entire field of virology claimed that there was no possible way SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab and anyone who claimed it could was spreading conspiracy theories. Those same scientists were simultaneously writing private emails saying a lab escape was definitely possible and even looked likely. You were the sort of person who was successfully fooled by their conspiracy, and maybe still are. Fundamentally, your attitude here is poisonous to the search for truth that defines science to begin with. If you can't be bothered evaluating their arguments then don't express opinions on them.