5 ms·

Journalist Alex Berenson was banned from Twitter for saying the covid vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission. He was correct.

by kodyo 4y ago

epgui 4y ago
Except that's not exactly true either, depending on how you look at it. At the population-scale, they do prevent infection and transmission, and they prevent it very very well. This particular individual has said many other things during and about the pandemic, and this was part of a much broader line of messaging that was, broadly speaking, both incorrect and harmful. (I'm a biochemist, and immunology and extracellular vesicles are my areas of expertise. No conflict of interest.)
- kodyo 4y ago
  Alright we’ll I’m opposed to censorship over pissy word-mincing. He wasn’t wrong.
- junofan 4y ago
  People say dumb and destructive stuff about my area of expertise too. I don’t think they should be silenced.
  - epgui 4y ago
    Does it spread like wildfire and cause people to lose their lives in a way that could totally be prevented? (What field?)
    - junofan 4y ago
      Yep. Finance. Resource allocation has life-or-death impact. Whether your immunology research finds applications, a hospital gets acquired instead of wound down, or an N95 factory gets built can be a few parameters pushed through a model. Parameters dictated by sentiment.
    - jsnk 4y ago
      I think the world could benefit immensely from banning some mainstream publications that ferment hatred, instill unjustified fear, destroy innocent people by labeling them with unspeakable labels. Their narratives for decades have destroyed nations, killed millions of people and locked the entire world down for 2 years. Do I still think they should still be able to have an outlet? Yes, I do. Just like every other publications, individuals and outlets banned by Twitter, FB, and Youtube.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > this was part of a much broader line of messaging When you start to do this, you've drifted into censoring people rather than misinformation. You can't censor things that are true for fear that they'll embolden forces that you are against. Well you can, but that's a dictatorship.
deathanatos 4y ago
I'll replicate the tweet, since I think it's useful when discussing these matters: > It doesn't stop infection. Or transmission. Don't think of it as a vaccine. Think of it - at best - as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity, "Don't think of it as a vaccine" is trivially false, as it is literally a vaccine. "terrible side effect profile" is false: we now have data that shows at population-scale the vaccine was overwhelmingly effective with minimal side-effects. (We knew that before then, too; anyone looking at the efficacy rates knew it before it hit the gen pop.) "that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS": that's how nearly all vaccines work, yes. Your body can't really fight an infection with the effects of the vaccine that it hasn't had the time to produce the corresponding antibodies for. (AIUI, rabies is the exception to this, where you can be vaccinated after infection, but that's due to rabies being a very slow moving infection.) "It doesn't stop infection. Or transmission." And the rest of the tweet is just misleading: nothing is guaranteed in life, but we can look at the probabilities and risks associated with and without the vaccine and know which choice has a lower risk profile, and make a sane recommendation based on that. Wearing your seat belt can't stop death in a car accident, but it is still a good idea. Tweets like these very likely drove people to not get vaccinated, leading to either them dying, or them passing it on to someone who did. Using some small technicalities around things that cannot be guaranteed not being guaranteed to try to push a bad policy and decision making is not "correct". The evaluation of risk here in the tweet is absurdly bad. Whether Twitter should be forced to promulgate such idiocy is a conversation that's been had many times since on HN, but it is idiocy.
- epgui 4y ago
  Thank you, I tried looking for the original tweet but with less success. I agree with your comment.

Journalist Alex Berenson was banned from Twitter for saying the covid vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission. He was correct.

by kodyo 4y ago

Journalist Alex Berenson was banned from Twitter for saying the covid vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission. He was correct.

epgui 4y ago

Except that's not exactly true either, depending on how you look at it. At the population-scale, they do prevent infection and transmission, and they prevent it very very well. This particular individual has said many other things during and about the pandemic, and this was part of a much broader line of messaging that was, broadly speaking, both incorrect and harmful. (I'm a biochemist, and immunology and extracellular vesicles are my areas of expertise. No conflict of interest.)

kodyo 4y ago
Alright we’ll I’m opposed to censorship over pissy word-mincing. He wasn’t wrong.
junofan 4y ago
People say dumb and destructive stuff about my area of expertise too. I don’t think they should be silenced.
- epgui 4y ago
  Does it spread like wildfire and cause people to lose their lives in a way that could totally be prevented? (What field?)
  - junofan 4y ago
    Yep. Finance. Resource allocation has life-or-death impact. Whether your immunology research finds applications, a hospital gets acquired instead of wound down, or an N95 factory gets built can be a few parameters pushed through a model. Parameters dictated by sentiment.
  - jsnk 4y ago
    I think the world could benefit immensely from banning some mainstream publications that ferment hatred, instill unjustified fear, destroy innocent people by labeling them with unspeakable labels. Their narratives for decades have destroyed nations, killed millions of people and locked the entire world down for 2 years. Do I still think they should still be able to have an outlet? Yes, I do. Just like every other publications, individuals and outlets banned by Twitter, FB, and Youtube.
pessimizer 4y ago
> this was part of a much broader line of messaging When you start to do this, you've drifted into censoring people rather than misinformation. You can't censor things that are true for fear that they'll embolden forces that you are against. Well you can, but that's a dictatorship.

deathanatos 4y ago

I'll replicate the tweet, since I think it's useful when discussing these matters: > It doesn't stop infection. Or transmission. Don't think of it as a vaccine. Think of it - at best - as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity, "Don't think of it as a vaccine" is trivially false, as it is literally a vaccine. "terrible side effect profile" is false: we now have data that shows at population-scale the vaccine was overwhelmingly effective with minimal side-effects. (We knew that before then, too; anyone looking at the efficacy rates knew it before it hit the gen pop.) "that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS": that's how nearly all vaccines work, yes. Your body can't really fight an infection with the effects of the vaccine that it hasn't had the time to produce the corresponding antibodies for. (AIUI, rabies is the exception to this, where you can be vaccinated after infection, but that's due to rabies being a very slow moving infection.) "It doesn't stop infection. Or transmission." And the rest of the tweet is just misleading: nothing is guaranteed in life, but we can look at the probabilities and risks associated with and without the vaccine and know which choice has a lower risk profile, and make a sane recommendation based on that. Wearing your seat belt can't stop death in a car accident, but it is still a good idea. Tweets like these very likely drove people to not get vaccinated, leading to either them dying, or them passing it on to someone who did. Using some small technicalities around things that cannot be guaranteed not being guaranteed to try to push a bad policy and decision making is not "correct". The evaluation of risk here in the tweet is absurdly bad. Whether Twitter should be forced to promulgate such idiocy is a conversation that's been had many times since on HN, but it is idiocy.

epgui 4y ago
Thank you, I tried looking for the original tweet but with less success. I agree with your comment.