6 ms·

Millions have died. Are still dying, especially in China. More could have died if there hadn't been a robust world-wide response. How do you illicit a robust w

Millions have died. Are still dying, especially in China. More could have died if there hadn't been a robust world-wide response. How do you illicit a robust world-wide response? By making the potential consequences of not acting abundantly clear, aka "fear-mongering".

danuker 4y ago
But you should address citizen concerns, rather than oppress them. For example: yes, the vaccine has side-effects. But here is the data on which we decided to still approve it: a much better aggregate health outcome and lower risk of death.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  That has been done. Ad nauseam. If you didn't notice that you had to actively ignore it or live under a rock or something.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > That has been done. Ad nauseam. Has it? Because Pfizer said they needed 75 years to release the vaccine trial data, and that was just a few months ago. Things were not as transparent as you imply.
    - fastaguy88 4y ago
      It is hard to tell whether you seriously believe this, or simply want to make an argument. Pfizer said they needed 75 years to redact a particular set of vaccine trial data given the resources they had allocated. They had already released an enormous amount of data, but were subjected to a nuisance suit asking for more. The statement that they wanted 75 years to release vaccine trial data is misleading.
      - naasking 4y ago
        Transparency is not a "nuisance", it's a requirement. Dismissing people's concerns as immaterial or nuisances is a big reason why people have lost trust in institutions. As for whether my claim was misleading, are you suggesting that the proposed schedule for releasing the vaccine safety data would not have taken 75 years? The fact that Pfizer released aggregated data based on their own analyses is immaterial if third parties can't analyze the raw data replicate the results.
        fastaguy88 4y ago
        Perhaps we can disagree on what constitutes transparency. Is the data release transparent if it does not include the full name and social security number of each participant? Surely that information would allow additional analysis. Transparency is not binary - there are trade offs. The nuisance part of the suit was in data that required painstaking redaction, without a strong argument for benefit.
        naasking 4y ago
        > Is the data release transparent if it does not include the full name and social security number of each participant? Surely that information would allow additional analysis No, that has no medical, public health or accountability benefit, and you know very well that this isn't the data the scientists are requesting be released. > The nuisance part of the suit was in data that required painstaking redaction, without a strong argument for benefit. The strong argument for benefit is that the public deserves to have a independent, public accounting of the processes that led to vaccine approvals. This has significant implications for how public health should be managed going forward, how government mandates surrounding vaccines should be handled, and even how public messaging affects institutional trust and vaccine adoption. Secretive processes managed by an unaccountable elite/select group whose judgment of the data we must simply trust is not how science works, or even how government should work. Edit: and to be clear, the documents they were forced to release to date on adverse events during the trial are already raising some eyebrows, and no doubt much more debate is to come.
  - danuker 4y ago
    No. For instance, on YouTube, even mentioning COVID would get you demonetized. Thunderf00t's video debunking lack of oxygen through masks was even taken down repeatedly. [1] And in the beginning, there were recommendations NOT to wear masks, because masks were not proven effective for THIS PARTICULAR virus. Which would have been impossible, since it was a month old. But my supposition is that the medical community wanted to buy them first, so I wore a scarf. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drN1VyLkEIY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drN1VyLkEIY
    - andrepd 4y ago
      >YouTube demonetisation Isn't this the very point of the GGP comment? Social media algorithms do a very poor job of selecting relevant information to present to users.
    - aqme28 4y ago
      YouTube has an incredibly aggressive demonetization policy. Its moderation is not a reflection of the FDA or CDC or whatever
      - danuker 4y ago
        Google and Facebook are so big and so closely tied to the government, they might as well be another branch of government. They might not even be financially viable without government deals like PRISM.
        oblio 4y ago
        > Google and Facebook are so big and so closely tied to the government, they might as well be another branch of government. By this logic almost every corporate out there is a branch of government. Which is trivially provable as being false. > They might not even be financially viable without government deals like PRISM. This is just absurd :-)))) Do you think Nike's ad money are funneled through PRISM?
        SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
        This reads like goalpost moving. It started with asking why science wasn’t being explained, and then used a private company’s aggressive censorship policies as an example while ignoring the government’s official statements and published studies, which are the actual authorities in the matter.
- gizmo 4y ago
  But the vaccines are not better for all segments of the population. For, say, a healthy 20yo male, the data clearly shows that a second shot of Moderna has net negative expectations. This demographic would be much better served by fewer lower dosage shots spread further apart. For a frail 80 year old every jab helps. For vaccines the choice was never about vaccinating everybody or vaccinating nobody and when you only look at aggregate health outcomes you can justify any number of horrific medical practices. E.g. is serving everybody peanut butter good in aggregate because there are more malnourished people in the world than people with peanut allergies?
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    "The data" does not "clearly show" any of that. Particularly there was not even a hint of such evidence until months or years after the vaccines have been approved. It's not so easy to find the exact age at which the vaccine becomes "net-positive" even assuming a negative effect can be shown at all. Which would also be very minor, on average. Turns out, "healthy 20yo males" don't generally react purely to vaccines.
    - gizmo 4y ago
      Clearly it's very hard to push for a vaccination mandate when acknowledging uncertainties like "more research is needed to determine which age/gender cohorts net benefit from vaccination". Much easier to push forward based on aggregate results from preliminary data. Some people think the end justifies the means but I'm very much opposed to misrepresenting scientific results to justify public policy.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        You're misunderstanding the decision at the time. It wasn't a case of "more research needed for decision" but rather "decision needed before more research". There isn't really any data showing a clear net negative outcome for any age group. And even if there had been some doubt, the overall picture, was and is that vaccinating everyone is saving lives and it had to be done as quickly as possible. Waiting for more data would have cost more lives. And the results show that decision was correct.
- andrepd 4y ago
  Are you implying that this wasn't done? This was precisely the communication I've seen, personally.
- oblio 4y ago
  The AZ vaccine was withdrawn in the EU only a few months after it was launched. Citizen concerns were addressed incredibly quickly by bureaucratic standards. Yes, the process was not nice looking, but it never is.

danuker 4y ago

But you should address citizen concerns, rather than oppress them. For example: yes, the vaccine has side-effects. But here is the data on which we decided to still approve it: a much better aggregate health outcome and lower risk of death.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
That has been done. Ad nauseam. If you didn't notice that you had to actively ignore it or live under a rock or something.
- naasking 4y ago
  > That has been done. Ad nauseam. Has it? Because Pfizer said they needed 75 years to release the vaccine trial data, and that was just a few months ago. Things were not as transparent as you imply.
  - fastaguy88 4y ago
    It is hard to tell whether you seriously believe this, or simply want to make an argument. Pfizer said they needed 75 years to redact a particular set of vaccine trial data given the resources they had allocated. They had already released an enormous amount of data, but were subjected to a nuisance suit asking for more. The statement that they wanted 75 years to release vaccine trial data is misleading.
    - naasking 4y ago
      Transparency is not a "nuisance", it's a requirement. Dismissing people's concerns as immaterial or nuisances is a big reason why people have lost trust in institutions. As for whether my claim was misleading, are you suggesting that the proposed schedule for releasing the vaccine safety data would not have taken 75 years? The fact that Pfizer released aggregated data based on their own analyses is immaterial if third parties can't analyze the raw data replicate the results.
      - fastaguy88 4y ago
        Perhaps we can disagree on what constitutes transparency. Is the data release transparent if it does not include the full name and social security number of each participant? Surely that information would allow additional analysis. Transparency is not binary - there are trade offs. The nuisance part of the suit was in data that required painstaking redaction, without a strong argument for benefit.
        naasking 4y ago
        > Is the data release transparent if it does not include the full name and social security number of each participant? Surely that information would allow additional analysis No, that has no medical, public health or accountability benefit, and you know very well that this isn't the data the scientists are requesting be released. > The nuisance part of the suit was in data that required painstaking redaction, without a strong argument for benefit. The strong argument for benefit is that the public deserves to have a independent, public accounting of the processes that led to vaccine approvals. This has significant implications for how public health should be managed going forward, how government mandates surrounding vaccines should be handled, and even how public messaging affects institutional trust and vaccine adoption. Secretive processes managed by an unaccountable elite/select group whose judgment of the data we must simply trust is not how science works, or even how government should work. Edit: and to be clear, the documents they were forced to release to date on adverse events during the trial are already raising some eyebrows, and no doubt much more debate is to come.
- danuker 4y ago
  No. For instance, on YouTube, even mentioning COVID would get you demonetized. Thunderf00t's video debunking lack of oxygen through masks was even taken down repeatedly. [1] And in the beginning, there were recommendations NOT to wear masks, because masks were not proven effective for THIS PARTICULAR virus. Which would have been impossible, since it was a month old. But my supposition is that the medical community wanted to buy them first, so I wore a scarf. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drN1VyLkEIY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drN1VyLkEIY
  - andrepd 4y ago
    >YouTube demonetisation Isn't this the very point of the GGP comment? Social media algorithms do a very poor job of selecting relevant information to present to users.
  - aqme28 4y ago
    YouTube has an incredibly aggressive demonetization policy. Its moderation is not a reflection of the FDA or CDC or whatever
    - danuker 4y ago
      Google and Facebook are so big and so closely tied to the government, they might as well be another branch of government. They might not even be financially viable without government deals like PRISM.
      - oblio 4y ago
        > Google and Facebook are so big and so closely tied to the government, they might as well be another branch of government. By this logic almost every corporate out there is a branch of government. Which is trivially provable as being false. > They might not even be financially viable without government deals like PRISM. This is just absurd :-)))) Do you think Nike's ad money are funneled through PRISM?
      - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
        This reads like goalpost moving. It started with asking why science wasn’t being explained, and then used a private company’s aggressive censorship policies as an example while ignoring the government’s official statements and published studies, which are the actual authorities in the matter.
gizmo 4y ago
But the vaccines are not better for all segments of the population. For, say, a healthy 20yo male, the data clearly shows that a second shot of Moderna has net negative expectations. This demographic would be much better served by fewer lower dosage shots spread further apart. For a frail 80 year old every jab helps. For vaccines the choice was never about vaccinating everybody or vaccinating nobody and when you only look at aggregate health outcomes you can justify any number of horrific medical practices. E.g. is serving everybody peanut butter good in aggregate because there are more malnourished people in the world than people with peanut allergies?
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  "The data" does not "clearly show" any of that. Particularly there was not even a hint of such evidence until months or years after the vaccines have been approved. It's not so easy to find the exact age at which the vaccine becomes "net-positive" even assuming a negative effect can be shown at all. Which would also be very minor, on average. Turns out, "healthy 20yo males" don't generally react purely to vaccines.
  - gizmo 4y ago
    Clearly it's very hard to push for a vaccination mandate when acknowledging uncertainties like "more research is needed to determine which age/gender cohorts net benefit from vaccination". Much easier to push forward based on aggregate results from preliminary data. Some people think the end justifies the means but I'm very much opposed to misrepresenting scientific results to justify public policy.
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      You're misunderstanding the decision at the time. It wasn't a case of "more research needed for decision" but rather "decision needed before more research". There isn't really any data showing a clear net negative outcome for any age group. And even if there had been some doubt, the overall picture, was and is that vaccinating everyone is saving lives and it had to be done as quickly as possible. Waiting for more data would have cost more lives. And the results show that decision was correct.
andrepd 4y ago
Are you implying that this wasn't done? This was precisely the communication I've seen, personally.
oblio 4y ago
The AZ vaccine was withdrawn in the EU only a few months after it was launched. Citizen concerns were addressed incredibly quickly by bureaucratic standards. Yes, the process was not nice looking, but it never is.