3 ms·

It's interesting they didn't ask questions like whether people believed that the COVID vaccine prevented transmission of the virus. The number might have been e

It's interesting they didn't ask questions like whether people believed that the COVID vaccine prevented transmission of the virus. The number might have been even more staggering.

tonyarkles 5mo ago
> COVID vaccine prevented transmission of the virus People aren't good at subtlety and nuance, and it's quite necessary: - Did the COVID vaccine prevent transmission of the virus? No, clearly not, because I was double vaccinated and still caught the virus and inadvertently spread the virus. - Did the COVID vaccine reduce the probability of transmission of the virus? Probably. - Did the COVID vaccine reduce the severity of symptoms if you were infected? Also probably. - Was there a non-zero risk of injury due to the COVID vaccine? Definitely. In the general population, did the risk of severe illness due to COVID outweigh the risk of vaccine injury? Very likely. For specific individuals who ended up debilitated for 12 months (like my close family member), undergoing a number of tests to try to find a cause other than vaccine injury, was it worth it? Hard to say. Edit: someone replied about vaccine injury and was flagged. In this particular case the doctor was convinced that it was Addison’s Disease and the onset was within days of, I believe her third dose. It’s an autoimmune disorder that affects the adrenal glands and results in insufficient cortisol. Except… there was nothing wrong with her adrenal glands and it went away a year later.
- LorenPechtel 5mo ago
  [dead]
- stinkbeetle 5mo ago
  I was not talking about "subtle and nuanced" claims though, just the one I mentioned.
  - tonyarkles 5mo ago
    Right, but the word "prevented" in this is way too subtle and nuanced: > whether people believed that the COVID vaccine prevented transmission of the virus Because the correct answer is "no, it didn't prevent transmission". It likely reduced transmission. Someone who'd been vaccinated twice and still caught the virus twice would very rightly say "no, this vaccine did not prevent me from being infected"
    - stinkbeetle 5mo ago
      No it's not, in the context that people believed it. That's the point.
      - tonyarkles 5mo ago
        It's a disingenuous trick question though, specifically because of the nuance that most people won't think too much about. Did the vaccine "prevent transmission"? No, obviously not. Did it seriously curb the virus from ripping through seniors care homes and killing a bunch of people? Yes. It's the kind of question that's phrased as a gotcha, not one that actually gets insight into population beliefs and behaviours beyond "oh look they fell for my trick"
        stinkbeetle 5mo ago
        I don't think it is a disingenous trick question, I think it is a good one because it exactly matches the misinformation being spread by some antiscientific liars who repeated it without any of that "nuance" you are talking about.
LorenPechtel 5mo ago
Huh? 1) No vaccine is 100% effective. 2) Against something that mutates quickly the vaccine will always be behind. Thus the new variants win out. (The same thing would happen in the absence of vaccines, but it would take longer.) The idea that it could actually be stamped out was very wishful thinking. But the vaccine does have a big benefit in reducing death.
- stinkbeetle 5mo ago
  Yeah I know it sounds crazy but that was among the misinformation being spread, and many widely believed it without evidence.
  - LorenPechtel 5mo ago
    Much of what I see is science generally avoids making claims that are not proven--but people want answers. When a reporter gets hold of something like China saying there is no evidence it's airborne they treat it like China saying that it isn't airborne. No--that wasn't incorrect, that was a lack of data. They didn't have a non-human host, it wasn't a disease where it would be reasonable to expose people and see what happens, data collection is going to be limited. But China saw it was probably airborne and reacted as if it were. We had the same data, we could reach the same conclusions, but we didn't want to.
    - stinkbeetle 5mo ago
      Not just reporters, political leaders and bureaucrats and self proclaimed "experts" spread anti-scientific misinformation too, like the one I mentioned. A big reason people believe these falsehoods.

It's interesting they didn't ask questions like whether people believed that the COVID vaccine prevented transmission of the virus. The number might have been even more staggering.

tonyarkles 5mo ago

> COVID vaccine prevented transmission of the virus People aren't good at subtlety and nuance, and it's quite necessary: - Did the COVID vaccine prevent transmission of the virus? No, clearly not, because I was double vaccinated and still caught the virus and inadvertently spread the virus. - Did the COVID vaccine reduce the probability of transmission of the virus? Probably. - Did the COVID vaccine reduce the severity of symptoms if you were infected? Also probably. - Was there a non-zero risk of injury due to the COVID vaccine? Definitely. In the general population, did the risk of severe illness due to COVID outweigh the risk of vaccine injury? Very likely. For specific individuals who ended up debilitated for 12 months (like my close family member), undergoing a number of tests to try to find a cause other than vaccine injury, was it worth it? Hard to say. Edit: someone replied about vaccine injury and was flagged. In this particular case the doctor was convinced that it was Addison’s Disease and the onset was within days of, I believe her third dose. It’s an autoimmune disorder that affects the adrenal glands and results in insufficient cortisol. Except… there was nothing wrong with her adrenal glands and it went away a year later.

LorenPechtel 5mo ago
[dead]
stinkbeetle 5mo ago
I was not talking about "subtle and nuanced" claims though, just the one I mentioned.
- tonyarkles 5mo ago
  Right, but the word "prevented" in this is way too subtle and nuanced: > whether people believed that the COVID vaccine prevented transmission of the virus Because the correct answer is "no, it didn't prevent transmission". It likely reduced transmission. Someone who'd been vaccinated twice and still caught the virus twice would very rightly say "no, this vaccine did not prevent me from being infected"
  - stinkbeetle 5mo ago
    No it's not, in the context that people believed it. That's the point.
    - tonyarkles 5mo ago
      It's a disingenuous trick question though, specifically because of the nuance that most people won't think too much about. Did the vaccine "prevent transmission"? No, obviously not. Did it seriously curb the virus from ripping through seniors care homes and killing a bunch of people? Yes. It's the kind of question that's phrased as a gotcha, not one that actually gets insight into population beliefs and behaviours beyond "oh look they fell for my trick"
      - stinkbeetle 5mo ago
        I don't think it is a disingenous trick question, I think it is a good one because it exactly matches the misinformation being spread by some antiscientific liars who repeated it without any of that "nuance" you are talking about.

LorenPechtel 5mo ago

Huh? 1) No vaccine is 100% effective. 2) Against something that mutates quickly the vaccine will always be behind. Thus the new variants win out. (The same thing would happen in the absence of vaccines, but it would take longer.) The idea that it could actually be stamped out was very wishful thinking. But the vaccine does have a big benefit in reducing death.

stinkbeetle 5mo ago
Yeah I know it sounds crazy but that was among the misinformation being spread, and many widely believed it without evidence.
- LorenPechtel 5mo ago
  Much of what I see is science generally avoids making claims that are not proven--but people want answers. When a reporter gets hold of something like China saying there is no evidence it's airborne they treat it like China saying that it isn't airborne. No--that wasn't incorrect, that was a lack of data. They didn't have a non-human host, it wasn't a disease where it would be reasonable to expose people and see what happens, data collection is going to be limited. But China saw it was probably airborne and reacted as if it were. We had the same data, we could reach the same conclusions, but we didn't want to.
  - stinkbeetle 5mo ago
    Not just reporters, political leaders and bureaucrats and self proclaimed "experts" spread anti-scientific misinformation too, like the one I mentioned. A big reason people believe these falsehoods.