6 ms·

The "COVID deniers", as they were labeled, (think people like Jay Bhattacharya, Scott Atlas et al), warned about all of this. They presented the tradeoffs and p

The "COVID deniers", as they were labeled, (think people like Jay Bhattacharya, Scott Atlas et al), warned about all of this. They presented the tradeoffs and probabilities on both sides. But they were completely shut down without debate, in the name of "following the science." They were shut down in concerted fashion-- by govt, by social media (under govt coercion, or ideological pull), by legacy media. And now the truth is coming out, and there is still no accountability for the "beat COVID at all costs" proponents. If we are to prevent this the next time a pandemic rolls through the world (and it will), there needs to be a society-level post-mortem, and not a blameless one.

lettergram 4y ago
[flagged]
sdwr 4y ago
Sure, practically, it would have been more efficient to go Sweden-style scorched earth. What I want done better next time, is building an "off switch" into the messaging. It should have been made clear from the start that COVID was temporary and would settle down into background flu noise in a few years. The danger has dissipated a lot faster than the hype. My local university just transitioned from "masks required" to "masks recommended", and the vaccine has been available for 1.5 years already.
- User23 4y ago
  Sweden? Look at Jamaica. Absolutely no impact from covid.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Jamaica had significantly more deaths from COVID than the global average. 3,476 deaths out of 3 million people is 1.16 deaths per 1000 people. Global average is 6,713,093 deaths from 8 billion people or 0.84 deaths per 1,000 people. Granted there is likely underreporting in global numbers. The real difference is simply the age of the population. Jamaica has a median age of 29.4 years old, where Italy which got hit even harder with 3 deaths per 1,000 people has a median age of 46.5. This is also why the developing world got out so easily: https://www.statista.com/statistics/829732/global-population-by-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/829732/global-population...
- bsder 4y ago
  Sweden's death totals per capita are still somewhere around 2x to 3x their neighbors. Is that a success? Certainly not unequivocally.
  - incrudible 4y ago
    Misleading. In terms of all cause mortality, Sweden is the clear winner in Europe.
tptacek 4y ago
Bhattacharya is also a vaccine skeptic (or, at least, an mRNA vaccine skeptic), so if you're taking him seriously on public policy, flip a coin.
- pcbro141 4y ago
  Sounds like as far as the mRNA vaccine, he was skeptical of the need to vaccinate young children given the extremely low COVID mortality rate in kids and concerns about myocarditis. Doesn't sound all that crazy. It's kind of expected some people will be skeptical about such an unprecedented situation (mass lockdowns, school shutdowns, quick vaccine rollout, mRNA being a relatively new technology at scale etc). Honestly it's a good thing to have scientists who are willing to be skeptics within reason, scientists make mistakes all the time and it's good to have other scientists checking them. Also important to remember some of what was considered 'crazy' and 'misinformation' and got people banned is now accepted as fact (like vaccines don't stop the spread, myocarditis risk etc) https://www.salon.com/2022/12/16/why-elon-musk-and-right-wing-pundits-are-cheering-a-doctor-with-questionable-vaccine-views/ https://www.salon.com/2022/12/16/why-elon-musk-and-right-win... > Bhattacharya is expressing tacit agreement with the panel's premise that "the Biden Administration and pharmaceutical corporations continue to push widespread distribution of mRNA vaccines on the public, including children as young as 6 months old, through relentless propaganda while ignoring real-life adverse events." Bhattacharya is also agreeing to work with individuals like Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo, who has spread misinformation about mRNA vaccines. Additionally, in May he argued the data on whether COVID-19 vaccines save lives is "surprisingly nuanced" and that it led him to believe "public health authorities should have recommended the cheaper adenovector vaccines over the mRNA vaccines all along for most patients."
  - tptacek 4y ago
    https://unherd.com/thepost/study-into-mrna/ https://unherd.com/thepost/study-into-mrna/
    - pcbro141 4y ago
      Genuinely don't see what he's said wrong here. He's just quoting a legitimate scientific review? Do you feel he misrepresented what's in the study? From the article you linked: > A bombshell new study by a distinguished team of Danish researchers led by Prof. Christine Stabell-Benn suggests a surprisingly nuanced answer. In the randomized trials of the covid vaccines, the adenovector-based vaccines, including the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, reduced all-cause mortality of study participants relative to people randomly assigned a placebo. Indeed, the reduction in mortality is larger than expected from the Covid effect and may suggest additional beneficial “non-specific effects” from those vaccines against other health threats. > On the other hand, Stabell-Benn and her colleagues found no statistically meaningful evidence in the trial data that the mRNA vaccines reduced all-cause mortality. The numbers of deaths from other causes including cardiovascular deaths appear to be increased in this group, compensating for the beneficial effect of the vaccines on Covid. Stabell-Benn is keen to stress that the sample is relatively small and is calling for further investigation, and also that the study took place during very low levels of Covid, so the relative advantage of protection against Covid would have been smaller at that time compared to at other points in the pandemic. > However, these preliminary results stand in sharp contrast to the unambiguous message from public health agencies and governments worldwide, which granted emergency authorization to the vaccines based on evidence from the trials that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of getting symptomatic covid. From a purely scientific perspective, preventing symptomatic covid is an interesting outcome to study. From a public health perspective, prevention of covid symptoms is not as important as prevention of death or disease transmission, which the randomized trials did not study. Dr. Stabell Benn and her colleagues have now looked at overall mortality for the first time. > At the very least, the plain implication (since both sets of vaccines are available) is that public health authorities should have recommended the cheaper adenovector vaccines over the mRNA vaccines all along for most patients. > In other words, the international move to de-authorise the AstraZeneca vaccine across Europe and elsewhere looks like it may have been a mistake, and that AZ was actually a better option than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. > It offers a potential contributory explanation for the better overall mortality outcomes in the UK (which overwhelmingly used the AZ vaccine) than much of continental Europe (which phased out the AZ vaccine) after the vaccine programme in the second half of 2021. From the study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489 > To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines reporting overall mortality, including COVID-19 deaths, accident deaths, cardiovascular deaths and other non-COVID-19 deaths. For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the two mRNA vaccines compared with placebo was 1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71). In the adenovirus-vector vaccines there were 122,164 participants and 46 deaths (vaccine:16; controls:30). The RR for adenovirus-vector vaccines versus placebo/control vaccine was 0.37 (0.19-0.70). The adenovirus-vector vaccines were associated with protection against COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.11 (0.02-0.87)) and non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.38 (0.17-0.88)). The two types of vaccines differed significantly with respect to impact on overall mortality (p=0.030) as well as non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (p=0.046). The placebo controlled RCTs of COVID-19 vaccines were halted rapidly due to clear effects on COVID-19 infections. However, the data presented here argue for performing RCTs of mRNA and adeno-vectored vaccines head-to-head comparing long-term effects on overall mortality. I don't see what's so crazy in his article, doesn't seem like a gross misrepresentation of the study.
yieldcrv 4y ago
My area experienced a hospital overload and that was very debilitating. No emergency services were available and that influenced people’s behaviors way more than the local lockdown order. This was the worst case scenario that the lockdown orders were made to avoid. In hindsight, I’m more so annoyed that additional healthcare capacity hasn't occurred, 3 years in. All the time borrowed and none of it used. To your credit, I do wonder if a month or two of debilitated emergency services in a Darwinian surge would have been better. The purge still happened, just took longer and SOME people got more fine tuned treatments by getting sick later, at the expense of healthier people having missed screenings for longer.
- TMWNN 4y ago
  >My area experienced a hospital overload and that was very debilitating. Are you sure? Are you really sure? As opposed to just hearing dire warnings? My understanding is that all or almost all of the predicted overload of hospitals never actually happened. In Wales, for example, Millennium Stadium was converted into a temporary field hospital with 300 beds and capacity to expand to 2000 beds. It was such a big deal that a public contest was held to name it Dragon's Heart Hospital <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Heart_Hospital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Heart_Hospital>. However, said hospital never had more than 46 patients at one time, and was closed in six weeks for lack of use! Even in NYC, which really did see overloaded hospitals briefly in March-April 2020, USNS Comfort treated a total of 179 patients. USNS Mercy treated a total of 77 patients in LA.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    Regarding "hospitals" then, no, I'm not really sure, you seem to have some data although the time period I'm referring to was Winter 2020-2021. Regarding lack of availability of emergency services due to some bottleneck of medical resources and personnel? then, yes, I'm really sure.
    - GenerocUsername 4y ago
      If the industry is anything like every other industry, than bottlenecks were surely induced BY the lockdown then and not prevented by it. So the justification for the lockdown was caused by the lockdown

lettergram 4y ago

[flagged]

sdwr 4y ago

Sure, practically, it would have been more efficient to go Sweden-style scorched earth. What I want done better next time, is building an "off switch" into the messaging. It should have been made clear from the start that COVID was temporary and would settle down into background flu noise in a few years. The danger has dissipated a lot faster than the hype. My local university just transitioned from "masks required" to "masks recommended", and the vaccine has been available for 1.5 years already.

User23 4y ago
Sweden? Look at Jamaica. Absolutely no impact from covid.
- Retric 4y ago
  Jamaica had significantly more deaths from COVID than the global average. 3,476 deaths out of 3 million people is 1.16 deaths per 1000 people. Global average is 6,713,093 deaths from 8 billion people or 0.84 deaths per 1,000 people. Granted there is likely underreporting in global numbers. The real difference is simply the age of the population. Jamaica has a median age of 29.4 years old, where Italy which got hit even harder with 3 deaths per 1,000 people has a median age of 46.5. This is also why the developing world got out so easily: https://www.statista.com/statistics/829732/global-population-by-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/829732/global-population...
bsder 4y ago
Sweden's death totals per capita are still somewhere around 2x to 3x their neighbors. Is that a success? Certainly not unequivocally.
- incrudible 4y ago
  Misleading. In terms of all cause mortality, Sweden is the clear winner in Europe.

tptacek 4y ago

Bhattacharya is also a vaccine skeptic (or, at least, an mRNA vaccine skeptic), so if you're taking him seriously on public policy, flip a coin.

pcbro141 4y ago
Sounds like as far as the mRNA vaccine, he was skeptical of the need to vaccinate young children given the extremely low COVID mortality rate in kids and concerns about myocarditis. Doesn't sound all that crazy. It's kind of expected some people will be skeptical about such an unprecedented situation (mass lockdowns, school shutdowns, quick vaccine rollout, mRNA being a relatively new technology at scale etc). Honestly it's a good thing to have scientists who are willing to be skeptics within reason, scientists make mistakes all the time and it's good to have other scientists checking them. Also important to remember some of what was considered 'crazy' and 'misinformation' and got people banned is now accepted as fact (like vaccines don't stop the spread, myocarditis risk etc) https://www.salon.com/2022/12/16/why-elon-musk-and-right-wing-pundits-are-cheering-a-doctor-with-questionable-vaccine-views/ https://www.salon.com/2022/12/16/why-elon-musk-and-right-win... > Bhattacharya is expressing tacit agreement with the panel's premise that "the Biden Administration and pharmaceutical corporations continue to push widespread distribution of mRNA vaccines on the public, including children as young as 6 months old, through relentless propaganda while ignoring real-life adverse events." Bhattacharya is also agreeing to work with individuals like Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo, who has spread misinformation about mRNA vaccines. Additionally, in May he argued the data on whether COVID-19 vaccines save lives is "surprisingly nuanced" and that it led him to believe "public health authorities should have recommended the cheaper adenovector vaccines over the mRNA vaccines all along for most patients."
- tptacek 4y ago
  https://unherd.com/thepost/study-into-mrna/ https://unherd.com/thepost/study-into-mrna/
  - pcbro141 4y ago
    Genuinely don't see what he's said wrong here. He's just quoting a legitimate scientific review? Do you feel he misrepresented what's in the study? From the article you linked: > A bombshell new study by a distinguished team of Danish researchers led by Prof. Christine Stabell-Benn suggests a surprisingly nuanced answer. In the randomized trials of the covid vaccines, the adenovector-based vaccines, including the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines, reduced all-cause mortality of study participants relative to people randomly assigned a placebo. Indeed, the reduction in mortality is larger than expected from the Covid effect and may suggest additional beneficial “non-specific effects” from those vaccines against other health threats. > On the other hand, Stabell-Benn and her colleagues found no statistically meaningful evidence in the trial data that the mRNA vaccines reduced all-cause mortality. The numbers of deaths from other causes including cardiovascular deaths appear to be increased in this group, compensating for the beneficial effect of the vaccines on Covid. Stabell-Benn is keen to stress that the sample is relatively small and is calling for further investigation, and also that the study took place during very low levels of Covid, so the relative advantage of protection against Covid would have been smaller at that time compared to at other points in the pandemic. > However, these preliminary results stand in sharp contrast to the unambiguous message from public health agencies and governments worldwide, which granted emergency authorization to the vaccines based on evidence from the trials that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of getting symptomatic covid. From a purely scientific perspective, preventing symptomatic covid is an interesting outcome to study. From a public health perspective, prevention of covid symptoms is not as important as prevention of death or disease transmission, which the randomized trials did not study. Dr. Stabell Benn and her colleagues have now looked at overall mortality for the first time. > At the very least, the plain implication (since both sets of vaccines are available) is that public health authorities should have recommended the cheaper adenovector vaccines over the mRNA vaccines all along for most patients. > In other words, the international move to de-authorise the AstraZeneca vaccine across Europe and elsewhere looks like it may have been a mistake, and that AZ was actually a better option than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. > It offers a potential contributory explanation for the better overall mortality outcomes in the UK (which overwhelmingly used the AZ vaccine) than much of continental Europe (which phased out the AZ vaccine) after the vaccine programme in the second half of 2021. From the study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489 > To examine the possible non-specific effects (NSEs) of the novel COVID-19 vaccines, we reviewed the randomised control trials (RCTs) of mRNA and adenovirus-vector COVID-19 vaccines reporting overall mortality, including COVID-19 deaths, accident deaths, cardiovascular deaths and other non-COVID-19 deaths. For overall mortality, with 74,193 participants and 61 deaths (mRNA:31; placebo:30), the relative risk (RR) for the two mRNA vaccines compared with placebo was 1.03 (95% CI=0.63-1.71). In the adenovirus-vector vaccines there were 122,164 participants and 46 deaths (vaccine:16; controls:30). The RR for adenovirus-vector vaccines versus placebo/control vaccine was 0.37 (0.19-0.70). The adenovirus-vector vaccines were associated with protection against COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.11 (0.02-0.87)) and non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (RR=0.38 (0.17-0.88)). The two types of vaccines differed significantly with respect to impact on overall mortality (p=0.030) as well as non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths (p=0.046). The placebo controlled RCTs of COVID-19 vaccines were halted rapidly due to clear effects on COVID-19 infections. However, the data presented here argue for performing RCTs of mRNA and adeno-vectored vaccines head-to-head comparing long-term effects on overall mortality. I don't see what's so crazy in his article, doesn't seem like a gross misrepresentation of the study.

yieldcrv 4y ago

My area experienced a hospital overload and that was very debilitating. No emergency services were available and that influenced people’s behaviors way more than the local lockdown order. This was the worst case scenario that the lockdown orders were made to avoid. In hindsight, I’m more so annoyed that additional healthcare capacity hasn't occurred, 3 years in. All the time borrowed and none of it used. To your credit, I do wonder if a month or two of debilitated emergency services in a Darwinian surge would have been better. The purge still happened, just took longer and SOME people got more fine tuned treatments by getting sick later, at the expense of healthier people having missed screenings for longer.

TMWNN 4y ago
>My area experienced a hospital overload and that was very debilitating. Are you sure? Are you really sure? As opposed to just hearing dire warnings? My understanding is that all or almost all of the predicted overload of hospitals never actually happened. In Wales, for example, Millennium Stadium was converted into a temporary field hospital with 300 beds and capacity to expand to 2000 beds. It was such a big deal that a public contest was held to name it Dragon's Heart Hospital <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Heart_Hospital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Heart_Hospital>. However, said hospital never had more than 46 patients at one time, and was closed in six weeks for lack of use! Even in NYC, which really did see overloaded hospitals briefly in March-April 2020, USNS Comfort treated a total of 179 patients. USNS Mercy treated a total of 77 patients in LA.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  Regarding "hospitals" then, no, I'm not really sure, you seem to have some data although the time period I'm referring to was Winter 2020-2021. Regarding lack of availability of emergency services due to some bottleneck of medical resources and personnel? then, yes, I'm really sure.
  - GenerocUsername 4y ago
    If the industry is anything like every other industry, than bottlenecks were surely induced BY the lockdown then and not prevented by it. So the justification for the lockdown was caused by the lockdown