3 ms·

Attempting to steel man the decision, they may not believe the vaccines work or are worth the expense and overhead. They may even go one step deeper and believ

Attempting to steel man the decision, they may not believe the vaccines work or are worth the expense and overhead. They may even go one step deeper and believe the vaccines aren't proven properly to know whether they work well enough.

dekhn 2y ago
It seems like the results will be somewhat predictable: the impact flu has every year is variable, with some years being incredibly bad and some being not that bad. Part of that is attributed to the vaccine rate, and how effective the vaccine is (this meeting is key to decision making about our expectations and how to make an effective vaccine), and part is simply random (based on too many correlated values, preventing good estimates of causation). If this meeting is cancelled, we would expect the vaccine to be less effective and would see greater impact (simply because it wasn't tailored to the be the most likely effective vaccine), but due to all the variables I mentioned it could even appear that "things got better after we did this" (post hoc ergo propter hoc). There is no steel man here, RFK just wants to demonstrate that his beliefs about viruses are true. We may or may not get enough unambiguous data to make conclusions about his beliefs in a year or two, but given the concomitant reduction in the effectiveness of the CDC due to Trump policies, and the sycophantic nature of the people being placed into leadership roles, we may simply never know because the data would not be collected, or the research not funded, or the publications retracted. Or RFK could somehow be right and we see a huge magic increase in public health across the country (not seen in other countries that keep vaccination). I am not aware of very many scientists who believe this will happen.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > If this meeting is cancelled, we would expect the vaccine to be less effective and would see greater impact (simply because it wasn't tailored to the be the most likely effective vaccine), but due to all the variables I mentioned it could even appear that "things got better after we did this" (post hoc ergo propter hoc). There is an alternative here - a population left to fight an outbreak through natural immunity will be stronger in the end. That's definitely not a popular opinion, and it may not be worth the cost, but it does align with large drops in death rates of past outbreaks which generally happened before a vaccine was even available. > There is no steel man here That's not how steel manning an argument works. The whole point is to make the most generous version of the argument, usually assuming the best intent. There is always a most generous explanation that would lead to the argument made, you just may not like it or may not think its likely. > Or RFK could somehow be right and we see a huge magic increase in public health across the country (not seen in other countries that keep vaccination). I am not aware of very many scientists who believe this will happen I don't know RFK's stance particularly well, but I would guess that he wouldn't expect a noticeable increase in health over a short timeline and without improving peoples' health in general. I'm pretty sure I've seen him argue for removing toxins from our food and water, reducing dependence on pharmaceuticals, etc. All of those are important factors and it isn't realistic to assume that removing only one factor would magically fix everything.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    > a population left to fight an outbreak through natural immunity will be stronger in the end. Most people get the flu multiple times during their lives already. When is this natural immunity supposed to kick in and stop the elderly and infirm from dying from it? Hell, why didn't this natural immunity protect the hundreds of millions of people who died prior to the introduction of vaccines from reoccurring outbreaks over the millennia? Never mind those who suffered lifetime disabilities from deafness to warped limbs.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      The flu isn't a stable thing though, there are multiple strains of what we call "the flu" and its constantly adapting/mutating. Previous infection is no guarantee of protection, just like previous vaccination us no guarantee. > When is this natural immunity supposed to kick in and stop the elderly and infirm from dying from it? That's a whole different ball game. You're talking about immunocompromised individuals, their immune system isn't well prepared to respond to natural infection PR vaccination. Vaccines can still help, though they're usually less effective and more likely to cause symptoms similar to the original disease you're vaccinating against. A vaccine isn't a magic bullet for preventing death. Vaccines still depend on the immune system doing its job effectively.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      > Measles mortality fell markedly (>90%) from the 19th century to mid-20th century prior to introduction of measles vaccine or the widespread use of antibiotics for secondary bacterial infections [1][2] This story is similar for most infections we now vaccinate for, death rates were dropping dramatically years before vaccines were introduced. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/agespecific-measles-mortality-during-the-late-19thearly-20th-centuries/F4D013C76395921C5338067A0BD0278C https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-inf... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Measles+mortality+in+the+United+States+1971%E2%80%931975&author=Engelhardt+S&publication+year=1980&journal=American+Journal+of+Public+Health&volume=70&pages=1166-1169 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Measles+mort...
  - 2y ago
cantrecallmypwd 2y ago
Peter principle meets Idiocracy. People will die unnecessarily because of incompetency and failure of leadership.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Idiocracy is how we got here, not principle.
throw0101c 2y ago
> They may even go one step deeper and believe the vaccines aren't proven properly to know whether they work well enough. They may even go further still and claim that the shot causes the flu—like RFK recently did with measles: > Kennedy claimed the outbreak was likely caused by vaccines — contrary to evidence that showed low vaccination rates as the culprit. The false theory seems to stem from a misreading of a California Department of Public Health report that mentioned cases of a vaccine-induced rash, not vaccine-induced measles. * https://www.nbcnews.com/news/texas-measles-outbreak-anti-vaccine-advocates-blame-shot-rcna193478 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/texas-measles-outbreak-anti-vac... Measles used to not be a thing: > The US declared that measles had been "eliminated" in 2000, but the country has seen outbreaks in recent years amid a rise in anti-vaccine sentiment. The last US measles death was in 2015, according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America. * https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyderx4v8go https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyderx4v8go
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > They may even go further still and claim that the shot causes the flu If by "the flu" you're referring to the disease rather than a specific pathogen, a vaccine can cause the flu. Its common for vaccines to cause symptoms similar to the pathogen, though those symptoms are usually more mild. Think about it for a second. A vaccine is meant to induce an immune response to allow the body to learn the pathogen before a natural infection. Symptoms are little more than the physical effects of your immune system doing its job and responding to a pathogen. Why wouldn't a good vaccine induce similar, though likely less severe, symptoms?
  - lossolo 2y ago
    A flu vaccine cannot "cause the flu". It can mimic an immune response similar to the flu, but this response is much weaker than what occurs during an actual infection, where a live pathogen is actively spreading and causing harm. The flu vaccine contains an inactivated ('dead') virus or a component of the virus, meaning it cannot replicate or cause illness in the way a live virus does.
    - 2y ago

dekhn 2y ago

It seems like the results will be somewhat predictable: the impact flu has every year is variable, with some years being incredibly bad and some being not that bad. Part of that is attributed to the vaccine rate, and how effective the vaccine is (this meeting is key to decision making about our expectations and how to make an effective vaccine), and part is simply random (based on too many correlated values, preventing good estimates of causation). If this meeting is cancelled, we would expect the vaccine to be less effective and would see greater impact (simply because it wasn't tailored to the be the most likely effective vaccine), but due to all the variables I mentioned it could even appear that "things got better after we did this" (post hoc ergo propter hoc). There is no steel man here, RFK just wants to demonstrate that his beliefs about viruses are true. We may or may not get enough unambiguous data to make conclusions about his beliefs in a year or two, but given the concomitant reduction in the effectiveness of the CDC due to Trump policies, and the sycophantic nature of the people being placed into leadership roles, we may simply never know because the data would not be collected, or the research not funded, or the publications retracted. Or RFK could somehow be right and we see a huge magic increase in public health across the country (not seen in other countries that keep vaccination). I am not aware of very many scientists who believe this will happen.

_heimdall 2y ago
> If this meeting is cancelled, we would expect the vaccine to be less effective and would see greater impact (simply because it wasn't tailored to the be the most likely effective vaccine), but due to all the variables I mentioned it could even appear that "things got better after we did this" (post hoc ergo propter hoc). There is an alternative here - a population left to fight an outbreak through natural immunity will be stronger in the end. That's definitely not a popular opinion, and it may not be worth the cost, but it does align with large drops in death rates of past outbreaks which generally happened before a vaccine was even available. > There is no steel man here That's not how steel manning an argument works. The whole point is to make the most generous version of the argument, usually assuming the best intent. There is always a most generous explanation that would lead to the argument made, you just may not like it or may not think its likely. > Or RFK could somehow be right and we see a huge magic increase in public health across the country (not seen in other countries that keep vaccination). I am not aware of very many scientists who believe this will happen I don't know RFK's stance particularly well, but I would guess that he wouldn't expect a noticeable increase in health over a short timeline and without improving peoples' health in general. I'm pretty sure I've seen him argue for removing toxins from our food and water, reducing dependence on pharmaceuticals, etc. All of those are important factors and it isn't realistic to assume that removing only one factor would magically fix everything.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  > a population left to fight an outbreak through natural immunity will be stronger in the end. Most people get the flu multiple times during their lives already. When is this natural immunity supposed to kick in and stop the elderly and infirm from dying from it? Hell, why didn't this natural immunity protect the hundreds of millions of people who died prior to the introduction of vaccines from reoccurring outbreaks over the millennia? Never mind those who suffered lifetime disabilities from deafness to warped limbs.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    The flu isn't a stable thing though, there are multiple strains of what we call "the flu" and its constantly adapting/mutating. Previous infection is no guarantee of protection, just like previous vaccination us no guarantee. > When is this natural immunity supposed to kick in and stop the elderly and infirm from dying from it? That's a whole different ball game. You're talking about immunocompromised individuals, their immune system isn't well prepared to respond to natural infection PR vaccination. Vaccines can still help, though they're usually less effective and more likely to cause symptoms similar to the original disease you're vaccinating against. A vaccine isn't a magic bullet for preventing death. Vaccines still depend on the immune system doing its job effectively.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > Measles mortality fell markedly (>90%) from the 19th century to mid-20th century prior to introduction of measles vaccine or the widespread use of antibiotics for secondary bacterial infections [1][2] This story is similar for most infections we now vaccinate for, death rates were dropping dramatically years before vaccines were introduced. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/agespecific-measles-mortality-during-the-late-19thearly-20th-centuries/F4D013C76395921C5338067A0BD0278C https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-inf... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Measles+mortality+in+the+United+States+1971%E2%80%931975&author=Engelhardt+S&publication+year=1980&journal=American+Journal+of+Public+Health&volume=70&pages=1166-1169 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Measles+mort...
- 2y ago

cantrecallmypwd 2y ago

Peter principle meets Idiocracy. People will die unnecessarily because of incompetency and failure of leadership.

_heimdall 2y ago
Idiocracy is how we got here, not principle.

throw0101c 2y ago

> They may even go one step deeper and believe the vaccines aren't proven properly to know whether they work well enough. They may even go further still and claim that the shot causes the flu—like RFK recently did with measles: > Kennedy claimed the outbreak was likely caused by vaccines — contrary to evidence that showed low vaccination rates as the culprit. The false theory seems to stem from a misreading of a California Department of Public Health report that mentioned cases of a vaccine-induced rash, not vaccine-induced measles. * https://www.nbcnews.com/news/texas-measles-outbreak-anti-vaccine-advocates-blame-shot-rcna193478 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/texas-measles-outbreak-anti-vac... Measles used to not be a thing: > The US declared that measles had been "eliminated" in 2000, but the country has seen outbreaks in recent years amid a rise in anti-vaccine sentiment. The last US measles death was in 2015, according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America. * https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyderx4v8go https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyderx4v8go

_heimdall 2y ago
> They may even go further still and claim that the shot causes the flu If by "the flu" you're referring to the disease rather than a specific pathogen, a vaccine can cause the flu. Its common for vaccines to cause symptoms similar to the pathogen, though those symptoms are usually more mild. Think about it for a second. A vaccine is meant to induce an immune response to allow the body to learn the pathogen before a natural infection. Symptoms are little more than the physical effects of your immune system doing its job and responding to a pathogen. Why wouldn't a good vaccine induce similar, though likely less severe, symptoms?
- lossolo 2y ago
  A flu vaccine cannot "cause the flu". It can mimic an immune response similar to the flu, but this response is much weaker than what occurs during an actual infection, where a live pathogen is actively spreading and causing harm. The flu vaccine contains an inactivated ('dead') virus or a component of the virus, meaning it cannot replicate or cause illness in the way a live virus does.
  - 2y ago