4 ms·
I really feel that many of the issues with mRNA vaccines and health studies in general are generalizations like “safe and effective”. Everything has statistical
by mchusma 3mo ago
I really feel that many of the issues with mRNA vaccines and health studies in general are generalizations like “safe and effective”. Everything has statistical risks and benefits, and we should just share those front and center with people. Eg test results for X mean you have a Y% chance of having X, given your history and symptoms and other results. Here are low cost low risk marginal things you can do to improve statistical significance.
Similar for vaccines, just give us the numbers clearly and upfront.
This bypasses regulators from having to make claims beyond “we reviewed the data and agree with these numbers and feel that this should not be banned.” I do think it would also help to separate something “not banned” and being “required to be covered by insurance” or “required for professions like the military”. I think trying to simplify things makes things worse, because this abstraction is not real.
- junofan 3mo agoYep, those regulated marketing terms could use an update. Regulators don’t make cures. There’s room to improve on that side of the system. Especially as emerging approaches seem to be trending more systems-thinking-oriented, eg “this will strengthen your immune system to fight lots of diseases.”
- estearum 3mo ago> Similar for vaccines, just give us the numbers clearly and upfront. You are aware that literally anyone can go and literally find exactly these numbers, correct? The trial results are published!
- s1artibartfast 3mo agoSounds like a oppurtunity for health educatation. 99%+ of people dont know they can look in the USPI for this data. However, it isnt the best and most up to date, which the regulator and FDA would have and are unlikely to share.
- estearum 3mo ago100% of people who Google something like "how do we know the covid vaccines are good" would discover that the tool we use to figure that out is called a "clinical trial." Then they can look up "covid vaccine clinical trial results." The reality is none of these "do your own research" or "just asking questions" people are actually curious whatsoever. Curiosity requires more than zero effort. Simply saying you're "doing your own research" and "just asking questions" while regurgitating the last thing you saw on your TikTok feed is super easy and gives you all the same sense of intellectual superiority.
- smallstepforman 3mo agoThe rushed clinical trials were only done with 122 people and a control group. During the very short trial, 1 person died in the first group, 2 in the other. The “conclusion” was its better to be vaccinated and it protects you better. 12 months later AstraZenica vaccine pulled from market everywhere ….
- 3mo ago
- blub 3mo agoIt’s trivial to publish these so that they’re both easily available and easy to understand. I’m guessing that’s not the case for the CDC, since you didn’t post any link or guideline. A nice example was the EUCDC guidance on AstraZeneca’s vaccine which showed that for young age groups the vaccine was more dangerous than the disease. That allows anyone to make an informed decision for themselves instead of being bullied or emotionally blackmailed “for the greater good”. Par for the course, I can’t access the actual study from The Lancet and have to settle for second-rate journalist summaries which are typically biased and ultimately worthless.
- estearum 3mo agoAs demonstrated, the people who struggle with this just don't actually have any actual curiosity. "Par for the course" indeed! Here's a step by step guide for you: 1. Google "Pfizer covid vaccine studies CDC" 2. Click top result: https://www.cdc.gov/acip/grade/covid-19-pfizer-biontech-vaccine.html https://www.cdc.gov/acip/grade/covid-19-pfizer-biontech-vacc... 3. Scroll to results: > Outcomes of interest included individual benefits and harms. Indirect effects of vaccination (e.g., societal benefits) were not considered... > In the Phase II/III RCT, using data on all blinded follow-up (up to 6 months or the unblinding date of March 13, 2021), the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine reduced symptomatic COVID-19 when compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy: 91.1% (95% CI 88.8–93.1%)) (Table 3a). For hospitalization due to COVID-19, 31 events occurred, all in the placebo group. Vaccine efficacy against hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 100% (95% CI 87.6–100%) (Table 3b). Deaths due to COVID-19 were uncommon, one in the vaccine group and six in the placebo group (83% (-39–98%)) (Table 3c). Numbers of SAEs were comparable between the vaccine group and the placebo group across the two RCTs (Phase II/III: 268/21,926 (1.2%) vs. 268/21,921 (1.2%); Phase I: 1/24 (4.2%) vs. 0/6 (0.0%)); there were no cases of vaccine-associated enhanced disease or vaccine-related deaths (Table 3e). Grade ≥3 reactions generally were not uncommon and occurred more frequently in the vaccine than placebo groups (Table 3f).
- xboxnolifes 3mo agoYes, but the point of science/health communication sources is to communicate. People aren't going to spend an afternoon figuring out where to find medical trial results, learn how to read them with a bunch of unknown terms, and form a risk tolerance analysis. I know this. You know this. Everyone know this. The health and science communicators must improve how they communicate with the public.
- Sammi 3mo agoBut they are! They are saying what is generally safe and what is not. Telling people the dry statistics won't help most people. Remember half of all people are below average in IQ. You need to paint with broad strokes if you want to reach most people.
- xboxnolifes 3mo agoClaiming that something is safe or not safe is not communicating risk. It is asserting a certain risk tolerance. "We have looked at the numbers and came to the conclusion that X is safe enough to use". This does not work if the people you are communicating with do not already trust your risk judgement. If it helps, substitute health officials and Healthcare with tech CEOs and tech products. Do you trust them when they claim that their products protect your privacy without laying out the evidence?
- ethbr1 3mo agoHence things like the US FDA's major statement / CCN standards: https://www.fda.gov/media/184312/download https://www.fda.gov/media/184312/download Providing accurate-in-effect summarized information is a difficult balance to strike. Ultimately though, if people really care, they should be parsing through study results.
- s1artibartfast 3mo agoAre government officials, like goveners or their health departments held to similar standards? I think this was the direction of their desire.