5 ms·

I think (at least) three big problems intersect here: 1. the sci/med establishment seems to have some ongoing ~bias issues that I don't fully understand when i

I think (at least) three big problems intersect here: 1. the sci/med establishment seems to have some ongoing ~bias issues that I don't fully understand when it comes to listening to and taking lay people seriously (especially women) 2. it's hard to do complex synthesis of relative risks and rewards across different studies measuring different things for different reasons 3. we've had a lot of uninformed and malicious actors splashing about in the information ecosystem It's a two-way street. Researchers and public health officials both need to take women seriously and they need to have faith that they can research or discuss details like this frankly through their normal semi-public publication channels without people who don't grok or don't care about the nuance of their research using it as an info-cudgel to induce FUD that ruins lives. To toss in the requisite anecdata, my sister got pregnant this past fall. She was due for a booster but FUD about it hurting the baby swayed her mind. She got omicron in late December, post-covid complications nearly took her and the baby in late February, and she had to live in the hospital until she delivered in June.

origin_path 4y ago
I have a lot of unvaccinated friends, some of whom have now had COVID. Their experience is not any different to those who were vaccinated. Bear in mind, Omicron emerged in 25% vaccinated South Africa and the reports from there were that it was so mild people didn't even realize they had COVID. The problem with your view about "uninformed and malicious actors" is that this is how public health describes anyone who points out their mistakes. It's a cliché they use to shut down debate and opposition. I've read a lot of material about vaccines now from non-public health sources and never seen any that could be described as malicious or uninformed. Indeed, they are usually way more informed than those who simply "follow the science". And the idea they're malicious is pure Hollywood fiction. None of them ever are. They just want to know what's true about the disease and vaccines. You could though, argue that about the public health officials who constantly lie to the public about scientific topics in order to generate compliance.
- abathur 4y ago
  Not sure how things things you project on my view about uninformed and malicious actors in our broad information ecosystem are a problem for my view.
gjsman-1000 4y ago
> To toss in the requisite anecdata, my sister got pregnant this past fall. She was due for a booster but FUD about it hurting the baby swayed her mind. She got omicron in late December, post-covid complications nearly took her and the baby in late February, and she had to live in the hospital until she delivered in June. The tricky thing with this though is that, what if there is an unknown side effect due to lack of research that could have hurt the baby (how many years of research have boosters had?), and she didn't experience that side effect but unwittingly chose a different evil?
- abathur 4y ago
  To put the exclamation point on it, she went into respiratory distress, was within minutes of death and was saved by a week on ECMO. Until the vaccine kills more pregnant women than covid, it's not tricky. (Spoken, as before, as a selfish older brother who almost lost one of the few people who'll ever think I hung the stars.) I wrote a little about this @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31208231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31208231
- ok_dad 4y ago
  - dang 4y ago
    You can't break the site guidelines like this, regardless of how wrong or bad another comment is or you feel it is. You also don't need to post flamewar comments or name-calling attacks of this sort—it actually weakens the case you'd prefer to strengthen. A reply like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32132621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32132621 does the job vastly better. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    Ad hominem attacks are banned here.
mmmmmbop 4y ago
This is just an anecdotal experience, but I was living amongst an international coworking community of a few dozen people in South Africa when omicron first broke out, and the vaccination status of people did not seem to have any observable effect on the prevalence or severity of the contracted disease. That is to say that your sister may have experienced the same effects even if she had taken the booster.
- dktokyo 4y ago
  - dudeDDRrulez 4y ago
    - pygy_ 4y ago
      Which numbers have been cooked? I remember outright lies coming out of the WHO and governments regarding the usefulness of masks (out of a fear of running out of stock for health professionals), and regular exaggerations of the benefit of vaccines coming from politicians (at least in France), where they were drawing a stark black and white picture of a much more nuanced reality. However, I don't remember seeing false epidemiological data coming out.
      - dudeDDRrulez 4y ago
        Many examples here but “97% of hospital admissions are unvaccinated” was a complete fabrication. Basically they used statistics from when 97% of the population was unvaccinated and kept using them for months longer than they should have. When that wasn’t feasible anymore, they started counting unknown vaccination status as unvaccinated to keep the 97% lie going. Ironically select ICUs report 90% of their cases are from fully vaccinated now.
        pygy_ 4y ago

origin_path 4y ago

I have a lot of unvaccinated friends, some of whom have now had COVID. Their experience is not any different to those who were vaccinated. Bear in mind, Omicron emerged in 25% vaccinated South Africa and the reports from there were that it was so mild people didn't even realize they had COVID. The problem with your view about "uninformed and malicious actors" is that this is how public health describes anyone who points out their mistakes. It's a cliché they use to shut down debate and opposition. I've read a lot of material about vaccines now from non-public health sources and never seen any that could be described as malicious or uninformed. Indeed, they are usually way more informed than those who simply "follow the science". And the idea they're malicious is pure Hollywood fiction. None of them ever are. They just want to know what's true about the disease and vaccines. You could though, argue that about the public health officials who constantly lie to the public about scientific topics in order to generate compliance.

abathur 4y ago
Not sure how things things you project on my view about uninformed and malicious actors in our broad information ecosystem are a problem for my view.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

> To toss in the requisite anecdata, my sister got pregnant this past fall. She was due for a booster but FUD about it hurting the baby swayed her mind. She got omicron in late December, post-covid complications nearly took her and the baby in late February, and she had to live in the hospital until she delivered in June. The tricky thing with this though is that, what if there is an unknown side effect due to lack of research that could have hurt the baby (how many years of research have boosters had?), and she didn't experience that side effect but unwittingly chose a different evil?

abathur 4y ago
To put the exclamation point on it, she went into respiratory distress, was within minutes of death and was saved by a week on ECMO. Until the vaccine kills more pregnant women than covid, it's not tricky. (Spoken, as before, as a selfish older brother who almost lost one of the few people who'll ever think I hung the stars.) I wrote a little about this @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31208231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31208231
ok_dad 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  You can't break the site guidelines like this, regardless of how wrong or bad another comment is or you feel it is. You also don't need to post flamewar comments or name-calling attacks of this sort—it actually weakens the case you'd prefer to strengthen. A reply like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32132621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32132621 does the job vastly better. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  Ad hominem attacks are banned here.

mmmmmbop 4y ago

This is just an anecdotal experience, but I was living amongst an international coworking community of a few dozen people in South Africa when omicron first broke out, and the vaccination status of people did not seem to have any observable effect on the prevalence or severity of the contracted disease. That is to say that your sister may have experienced the same effects even if she had taken the booster.

dktokyo 4y ago
- dudeDDRrulez 4y ago
  - pygy_ 4y ago
    Which numbers have been cooked? I remember outright lies coming out of the WHO and governments regarding the usefulness of masks (out of a fear of running out of stock for health professionals), and regular exaggerations of the benefit of vaccines coming from politicians (at least in France), where they were drawing a stark black and white picture of a much more nuanced reality. However, I don't remember seeing false epidemiological data coming out.
    - dudeDDRrulez 4y ago
      Many examples here but “97% of hospital admissions are unvaccinated” was a complete fabrication. Basically they used statistics from when 97% of the population was unvaccinated and kept using them for months longer than they should have. When that wasn’t feasible anymore, they started counting unknown vaccination status as unvaccinated to keep the 97% lie going. Ironically select ICUs report 90% of their cases are from fully vaccinated now.
      - pygy_ 4y ago