This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
CDC has released a report today finding preliminary association between the Pfizer vaccine and stroke for those over 65 years of age.
Another drop in the bucket - or is the bucket spilling out the top now?
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/bivalent-boosters.html
Pfizer is associated significantly with strokes - CDC is keeping us in the dark about the exact data.
They then list multiple studies that did not replicate this finding for the BIVALENT vaccine - well of course, this vaccine was testing on mice, and then deployed without long term testing. Do they have monovalent data they are not mentioning?
EDIT: Is it possible monovalent risk benefit analysis is simply using a different pathogen, and now with the advent of Omicron, this is a medical update saying this level of strokes is no longer worth the benefit vs the current pathogen? Food for thought.
This contradicts what Paul Offit's opinion is, which was posted in the NEJM. Paul Offit believes we should not give bivalent boosters to young healthy patients.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2215780
It would be much more shocking to announce a chance to the vaccine campaign, than to keep the current inertia the same. I think we are seeing a communication strategy developing to deliver the population into accepting yearly mRNA vaccines - instead, they will be directed to other worthwhile candidates for vaccination - IF pharma companies can even deliver those.
In my eyes: mRNA vaccines are dangerous, so you need to determine how dangerous the pathogen presenting is. I see a great use case for mRNA developing for Airborne Ebola Zaire strains (90% mortality) or other disease of similar magnitude. Simply put: your vaccine should not significantly increase cardiovascular risk. It should be absolutely negligible. 1 in a million, whereas these vaccines might be 1 in 100,000.
What we need to compare this to is the pre-existing risk of stroke in people over 65 before getting any vaccines or treatment of any sort for any condition, and that appears to be high already:
So this is the same question as the one about miscarriages etc. - are they directly attributable to the vaccine, or are they being noted and recorded as vaccine-related/Covid-related, just because a lot of people are being vaccinated/contracting Covid? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Now, if you pull up a link about 30 year olds getting strokes at the higher than normal rate, great, that's something to be addressed. But "population already at high risk of having strokes are getting strokes" is not, not unless "the rate is usually 75% but now has increased to 90%".
That is not what it says, upon reading. It says that there was a signal which "met the statistical criteria to prompt additional investigation into whether there was a safety concern for ischemic stroke in people ages 65 and older who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent".
They investigated, and found nothing of concern. This is because:
So you leading off with "Guys, guys, CDC found the vaccine booster causes strokes!" is incorrect.
I think this is totally wrong. If two people get strokes instead of one, that's not a worry. If two thousand people get strokes instead of a thousand, that is way more of a worry, the absolute amount of people being affected is much higher. I get the logic. Strokes happening to old people is Normal and to young people is Scary. But often Scary problems are Scary precisely because they're uncommon, while we shut our eyes to bigger problems precisely because we decide they're Normal.
More options
Context Copy link
You think that the CDC's statistical criteria don't involve exceeding the base rate in a statistically significant manner?
What's the base rate, what are the criteria for reporting?
So what we have is this: CDC did additional investigation, found nothing. Two conclusions:
(1) There is nothing there, the initial system that triggered the investigation was just picking up usual numbers
(2) There is something there, and the CDC, Pfizer, and other countries are all lying and covering up
Original post is trying to incline us to number (2). I want to know what is the base rate and how was it exceeded, if it was exceeded, before I throw ni with "it's all a cover-up".
Even if it is a real risk, how many of us are over 65? OP is using "risk of strokes in over 65" as an argument not to get any boosters, on the grounds that "if this is happening to them, what is happening to younger people?" and that's where the link needs to be demonstrated.
For instance, stroke is increasing among younger adults. Down to the vaccine? No, this is the conclusion of a 29 year study looking at data from 1990-2019:
So the reporting system may well be picking up something to do with strokes, but that it's down to the Covid vaccine alone has not been proven. Apparently, globally the incidence of stroke is going up, due to increased risk factors like obesity, high blood pressure, smoking, etc. And the rate of brain hemorrhage amongst younger adults, due to uncontrolled high blood pressure, is also increasing:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The vaccine debate has to be the least productive of any topic. has anyone on either side ever had their minds changed on this issue despite all the ink spilled? Given how many people have taken the vaccines (billions worldwide) if there was even a small uptick in deaths and other complications, it would be a huge deal and unavoidable. You would not need to comb through huge troves of data to find maybe a tiny uptick in deaths for some small cohort
Don't regret the first two shots, regret the booster and don't think the vaccine should be taken by people <50 years of age.
More options
Context Copy link
I had my assumptions challenged. I thought the vaccines would be fine (ie a net benefit across all age cohorts), but when they were being recommended to children and young men I found myself to opinions other than the vaccines are the best/worst thing ever.
In a bunch of countries there is newish data indicating increased excess deaths not attributable to Covid. The confounders are myriad, but there is allegedly an unattributed signal to analyse.
More options
Context Copy link
I also changed my opinion after researching it. I was happy to get the first 2 jabs knowing what I did then, but the case for boosters in a post-Omicron world seems weak at best. Agree, however, that the magnitude of vaccine-related deaths is very small at this point.
More options
Context Copy link
Raising my Hand. My mind was changed on vaccine. Never a mandate fan. And I do think one dose of vaccine is useful if you haven’t had COVID but I’m solidly against jabbing every 6 months.
I think a lot of people on this camp
More options
Context Copy link
An easy way to falsify 'has anyone on either side ever changed their minds' is to ask: "where did all the anti-covid-vaccine people come from"? There are many more of them than there were vocal antivaxxers in 2016. It's not really productive as it stands though, few involved (I'm not one of them) understand enough about immunology, pharmaceutical development, epidemiology to really add anything .
I'm having a hard time seeing how even experts are adding much here. The subject matter is too complex. It's like trying to describe the flight of a baseball by the interactions of the atoms within the baseball. Theoretically possible, but not likely to be useful. That's why we need to take an outside view. Group A takes the vaccine. Group B doesn't. What are the outcome differences of those groups (taking into account externalities as much as possible)?
We can talk about spike proteins until we're blue in the face, but that's just theory, compared to the results which can be measured from a vaccine given to billions of people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes? Many people took the first round and adamantly refuse to take any boosters.
I took the first round and then later got COVID. And then later got COVID yet again. My understanding is that getting COVID gives immunity around as good as the shot. I'm not sure if boosters would significantly help me.
More options
Context Copy link
Almost all those not taking boosters - which is more than half of those who've had a shot - do so because they think they're already vaccinated and protected / the pandemic's over / don't see the point, but are still happy about the first shots.
How do you know it's almost all? The first booster was out before the pandemic was "over" (the mask/test/recovery/vax mandates were still in effect, and the propaganda was still in full force). Me and my wife took the first 2 shots, and now regret it, several of our friends are in the same situation, and some even took the boosters against their will.
Both from talking to people IRL in a variety of walks of life, casually browsing many parts of the internet - probably 10% of the population at least has some form of vaccine-concern, but at least >75% of the vaccinated-non-boostered are content with the initial vaccines, probably.
Glancing at a study here - data from june/july 2022, published a week ago - seems to agree.
... okay, more than glancing, I downloaded the data, and filtered for the US (idk maybe i messed something up, but it matches with the figures):
\3. The risks of COVID-19 disease are greater than the risks of the vaccine
{ 'Strongly Agree': 507, 'Somewhat Agree': 202, 'Unsure/no opinion': 157, 'Somewhat disagree': 64, 'Strongly disagree': 70, Unanswered: undefined}
\4. The COVID-19 vaccines available to me are safe
{ 'Strongly Agree': 470, 'Somewhat Agree': 238, 'Unsure/no opinion': 156, 'Somewhat disagree': 60, 'Strongly disagree': 76, Unanswered: undefined}
And when filtered for answered anything other than 'no' on 'have you received a dose' q7
\3. The risks of COVID-19 disease are greater than the risks of the vaccine
{ 'Strongly Agree': 493, 'Somewhat Agree': 172, 'Unsure/no opinion': 94, 'Somewhat disagree': 27, 'Strongly disagree': 20, Unanswered: undefined}
\4. The COVID-19 vaccines available to me are safe
{ 'Strongly Agree': 465, 'Somewhat Agree': 224, 'Unsure/no opinion': 89, 'Somewhat disagree': 20, 'Strongly disagree': 8, Unanswered: undefined}
Open access data is really nice.
On the other hand, here's a rasmussen poll - https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/covid_19/concerns_about_covid_19_vaccines_remain_high . Polling is hard.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I used to do vaccine research for a living and when the Covid vaccines rolled out, I advised people that asked me that they should take them because they'll probably work just fine. The couple years of evidence that we now have has led me to switch over to saying that the Covid vaccines are comically bad, the authorities saying otherwise are ridiculous liars, and the retconning to "it was never supposed to prevent infection" undermines the credibility of all future vaccines. So yeah, I'd say that my mind has changed.
More options
Context Copy link
I’m not sure we haven’t. Look at this. https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/another-look-at-uk-all-cause-mortality
Where is the author wrong?
I'm thinking of doing a top-level post on this next week, but it seems like this data doesn't necessarily jive with results in other countries. For example, in France, in a country with high vaccination rates, 2022 excess deaths in the 15-64 age category are actually down considerably from normal levels:
https://mpidr.shinyapps.io/stmortality/
England and U.S. mortality is up however. Perhaps its obesity or fentanyl related?
It would be interesting. And maybe there are just abnormalities in country by country numbers but given the high excess deaths in 20-21 you’d expect a large drop in excess deaths in 22.
Would also be interesting to see data on births. I’ve seen some series suggesting there has been a large drop in births and there was the Israeli data on sperm motility. It’s frustrating that we don’t get this info easily since a lot of country possess this info.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, let's say you did not want to take the vaccine, and you were mandated to take it. You could choose either J&J, mRNA, Novavax, or even fly overseas to get Covaxin. You may begin debating at that point.
mRNA vs. Other vaccines is a very difficult topic, because defanging a countries ability to give mandated vaccines is bad, but mandating vaccines that are bad isn't good. In fact, perhaps extreme caution should be taken based on the prior.
Why should a state even have the ability to mandate medical treatment when that's a very clear bright line violation of natural rights?
I care much more about the ethics of mandates than I do the specifics of efficacy. The individual must make the informed decision on this, not the state, and any mandates are tyranny that must be defended against to the death.
There is certainly a debate to be had about mRNA, a very necessary one, which was poisoned by the will to impose without discussion as we now know for a fact, but the idea that we should assume from the beginning that the State has to retain tyrannical powers in the name of public health is insane.
This seems like overly dramatic macho posturing. Obviously you are still alive and didn’t do anything of the sort.
Can you seriously not imagine a situation where mandates would be warranted? I don’t support the mandates for COVID, but being unwilling to even consider that there might be a point where the tradeoff scales tip is just an unreasonably ideological suicide pact. If there were a hypothetical disease much more deadly than COVID, surely you must be able to imagine such a thing
If someone is charged by a needle-wielding thug with the intent to stab them with it, I believe they are entitled to defend themselves, up to and including using lethal force against the assailant. Even if said thug is an agent of the state. Of course, this would be analogous to compulsory vaccination, which is not the form most vaccine mandates took in 2021. Rather, they are more akin to a mugging, and that's a slightly greyer area when it comes to whether lethal force is appropriate for self defence.
Regardless, medical coercion is a gross violation of ethics. Even in the absence of vaccine mandates themselves, lockdownist regimes violated medical ethics in how they offered the vaccines. They advertised that restrictions would go away without vaccines, hence created the implicit threat of more restrictions in the case of refusal.
My judgement on this comes from the UKDH reference guide to consent for examination or treatment, which says:
On this basis, the existence of vaccine mandates clearly poses a risk for violating informed consent, as it introduces duress in several ways. Firstly, it means pressure or undue influence being exerted on the person to accept treatment from government, employers, retail services etc. Secondly, it also means threats of the withdrawal of privileges in an environment with involuntary detention. See how specific the language here is, how closely and specifically it applies to the circumstances of vaccine mandates in countries that carried out lockdowns, despite the age of the document long predating covid. That should hint that these recommendations are not simply some backporting or recency bias for the sake of winning an argument, but instead represent best practice as it was already understood.
Even political leaders broadcasting claims that vaccines are a route out of lockdowns, or that unless X% of the population are vaccinated that restrictions will continue, introduces duress. However, this is more of a footnote, as regimes that carried out the false imprisonment of the entire population are already instantly rendered illegitimate by doing so.
Personally, I found the whole process so fucking disgusting that I refused to take the vaccines purely on the basis of that. I don't care if they're the best or the worst vaccines in the world. The rubicon is crossed, and the relevant institution is no longer trustworthy. For the state to insist that people are born subhuman, and only acquire rights after jumping through regime-approved hoops and injecting regime-approved substances on a regime-approved schedule... The very thought sickens me. The fact that a large proportion of my fellow countrymen, as if somehow I can regard them in such friendly terms any more, agreed with these mandates sickens me even more.
Even mandatory vaccinations would not consist of "needle-wielding thugs" charging you trying to stab you.
Is not a remotely rational description. Nowhere in the Western world did vaccine requirements come anywhere near the level of the unhinged rhetoric you keep repeating. (China wielding people inside their houses? That's legitimately terrifying, but also not an aberration in China.) You are not describing reality. You are not describing actual events, behaviors, or policies. You have never, in all the time you have ridden this hobby horse, described the world we live in. Nothing you have described actually happened, ever.
Austria came close to criminalizing being unvaccinated, aborting plans to do so at the last minute.
Some countries implemented lockdowns on the basis of vaccine status. Again Austria comes to mind as an example. Austria's regime did decide that people who did not jump through regime-approved hoops and take regime-approved medication on a regime-approved schedule are so unworthy that they do not deserve the right to leave their homes. I don't know what to call that beyond treating them as subhuman. Many more places decided that they couldn't be allowed to attend events, restaurants and bars, shops etc. Even the US, to this day, continues to regard unvaccinated people as lesser by making it illegal for them to enter the country.
And I've seen enough rhetoric from governments and supporters of mandatory vaccinations to know that, without pushback, they'd have gone further. Because of this, I'm not particularly interested in merited impossibility, nor lockdown denial.
Even if I believe you (I don't), you're describing something that was floated as a proposal, not something that actually happened.
I could reword almost any law to sound ridiculous and dystopian. "Some people are treated as so subhuman they aren't even allowed to get behind the wheel of a car!"
There are many situations in which the government can restrict your freedom to travel. While you may not agree with all (or any) of them, they are not "treating you as subhuman." Unless you're an anarchist and you believe all laws are treating you as subhuman, in which case, okay, that would at least be consistent if still irrational.
All countries have restrictions on who can enter, and the US is not the only one that includes vaccinations as a requirement, and not all vaccination requirements are COVID-related. So every country in the world regards some people as "lesser" in this fashion.
Your rhetoric is unhinged and counterfactual.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I will not fedpost, but I quit my job over this and moved to a sane country, I think that's enough skin in the game for this conversation.
And no I don't see a point where the government is allowed to become tyrannical because the very legitimacy of the government stems from it not being so. Not even if the bodies are piling up in the streets will I accept to be injected with drugs against my will.
Mary Mallon would have been entirely justified to kill her captors and escape for by the point they imprisoned her in perpetuity they broke the social contract and returned her and themselves to the state of Nature.
Health decisions about one's body must rest in individual will however much it is possible. Informed consent is the bare minimum. Anything else is ethically unacceptable.
I was unfamiliar with that but assuming that following is accurate I do not consider it as straightforward. And if you go "returned her and themselves to the state of Nature" then it anyway justifies using raw power to overpower everyone else anyway - and I do not think that it is in any way better.
(...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon
I don't think you understand, one has a duty to escape the state of nature if at all possible (at least according to Hobbes) and enter into more adequate equilibria in general. That tyrannical governments force us out of it by defecting is a moral sin. But once it's you vs the world, yes anything is permitted. John Smith is perfectly legitimate to blow away any and all law enforcement sent by a congress that would pass the kill-John-Smith-on-sight act, or to break any laws passed by such a body as they are now null and void concerning him.
This is not an argument against rebellion, it is an argument against tyranny.
In the case of Mary specifically it's extremely debated whether she knew for a fact she was responsible for those illnesses (which I do believe would carry some amount of responsibility vis à vis nonagression), but I'm merely referring here to the injustice of her perpetual imprisonment as punishment for existing as a danger.
In such a circumstance I would rebel, because there would be nothing else to do than rebel, asking for people to acquiesce to the destruction of their autonomy or indeed to their own destruction is game-theoretically unreasonable, and that's the fundamental truth that natural law attempts to point out.
And this truth, embedded in the concept of natural rights is what makes forcing people to engage in medical procedures unreasonable. You can't reasonably ask people to give up control of their own body. And I don't think it's overstating it to say that this is a matter worth dying over because people have done so in its name in the past.
The issue is they tried to give her several outs, as in not working as a cook. Its only when she went to some lengths to continue doing that, that they locked her up entirely.
If she was justified in killing those who imprisoned her then those she endangered would be justified in outright killing her. But they tried not to do that.
If being imprisoned allows one to kill to stop it, then being infected with a deadly disease by someone who has been told multiple times to stop doing the thing that caused outbreaks should also meet that bar.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As an observer of the vaccine debates, its not useful to me on the specifics of the vaccine. I didn't take it and probably wont have to ever, had covid, its over.
But the meta-debate does allow me to calibrate my opinion of who to trust. Whose predictions panned out, who lied, who was okay with lying for the "greater good", etc. Im predicting in the coming years, a lot of people will be vindicated and a lot of people will have pies on their faces. The rhetorical stakes are too high for it to be any other way now.
If anything, atleast now I know who (almost everyone) is totally okay with me being a second class citizen on the premise of refusing certain medication. Some masks are off permanently. Them denying this in the future wont change my opinion of them.
Unfortunately, there are a whole bunch of people for which it's not yet over. The federal gov't is still litigating at least two of their mandates, a mandate is now firmly implanted in immigration law, and there may well be state mandate battles still going on to boot. I probably cannot capture the absurdity of it, either, because what they are still trying to force on people is the original vaccine. Not even updated vaccines that are tailored to the current strains. They're still fighting in courts for the ability to force people to take shots now that are essentially useless (especially since most non-vaxxed folks have almost certainly had some strain of COVID by now), under threat of firing them, taking away their contracts, or prohibiting them from entering the United States.
In the Fifth Circuit's en banc oral argument, the fact that the vaccines don't do a great job at preventing infection or transmission came up, and the gov't said that their position could still be sustained on the grounds that it reduces the risk of severe cases/death. When pressed on whether the gov't could, on the same grounds, require everyone to get below a certain BMI, as obesity brings severe risks which are endemic in our society, they basically just said, "Yeah, we wouldn't do that tho."
This is why it's still so important. If there is not enough anti-authoritarian energy to form a hard consensus that the gov't should not even have the option to do such things, those people will go beyond the mask of "we won't force you to take certain medication". There will be more masks to come.
I am fully aware that the "real fight" is far from over given that many questionable laws are put into place and there is no precedent that all that was done for covid would not be repeated in the future. If anything the probability that it would be repeated is not infinitely higher. So that is a new CW battlefront in the making.
However, this seems to be mostly a (country with high state capacity) problem. Many countries have really left covid in the past and anything associated with it altogether.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
same here. i got it twice. the first time it was like a cold, second time only very mild. it's over .
Isn't there some worry that repeated Covid infections (or boosters) could cause long-term damage? I've definitely heard this claimed. Not sure how much of this is crackpot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Agreed. I personally have a high esteem for many people on both sides of the issue - that's what makes this query so incisive and important.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You forgot this part:
and this part:
which is probably why they said
Seems pretty reasonable.
And, you are being dishonest when you say:
The evidence they cite is:
Other countries have not observed an increased risk for ischemic stroke with updated (bivalent) vaccines
None of which seems to have anything to do with mice.
Yes, they say it's unlikely - but it's possible. SO now that we've established, it is unlikely, but possible that the vaccine can cause harm (which is occult and being undetected in other countries - if this possibility fleshes out).
The vaccination process will still be based heavily on a paradigm that humans MUST avoid circulating respiratory pathogens, yet if they must get infect, their best course of action is to take EUA vaccine (of which options are limited and you still cannot acquire an FDA approved and labelled vial of vaccine), at any age. They have said, the possibly the vaccine has a problem is not worth their time changing their public health campaign goal.
They do not submit any evidence regarding the monovalent vaccine. Yet the bivalent has the same synthetic mRNA transcripts as monovalent. Do we even know if bivalent mRNA is transcribed as a single strand, or seperated into two seperate mRNA molecules?
Not seeing any reason to get vaccinated for omicron, at almost any age or health, with an mRNA vaccine. We need a diversity of vaccines in this country, since efficacy is going to eventually drop for each mRNA boost.
No, from reading the report, they have a system which records symptoms in people who have received the vaccines and report side effects. There was a blip which they are required to investigate. The blip was "population at high risk of strokes are getting vaccinated and reporting strokes". So what has to be established is "does the vaccine cause, or elevate, a risk of having strokes?", and that was not established.
You could do a trial recording people who are in that age range (over 65) and do they report colds, sickness, arthritis flare-ups, gastro-intestinal problems and so forth after being administered a placebo, and see if that is reported. But we don't do that, because we expect people to have more health problems as they get older. Strokes and heart attacks are some of those problems. I'm sure that after getting the yearly flu vaccine, people also report first time strokes. But that doesn't mean the flu vaccine caused it, it means "you're over 65 and this is the risk of health problems you are going to have from now on".
Your own phrasing gives it away - hidden harm which is not detected in other countries, but you're sure it's happening anyway, because your prior is "The vaccine is dangerous" and you're grasping at straws to find anything to support that. So invisible danger nobody can find is there and that means the vaccines should be banned!
The vaccines are dangerous precisely because we are analyzing and looking for hidden harm, after we already administered a billion doses without fully understanding the consequences and outcomes.
mRNA cardiovascular toxicity is a severe problem and if it's at all likely, the hammer should drop. This "blip" is an 18 year old about to get mandated with mRNA bivalents before going to a community college.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
... do you think there's a meaningful chemical difference between a 'FDA approved and labeled vial' and earlier vials? Imagine a hippie liberal who refuses to buy fruit that's not labeled "non-gmo", even though the alternative fruits aren't crispred anyway.
No there's a meaningful legal, judicial, and regulatory framework surrounding those vials. And the public health vaccination campaign.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why? This seems to me like you picked "an order of magnitude safer than what it allegedly is" and if the alleged rate of danger were different, you would have picked a different goal. Unfortunately I can't easily find the serious side effect rate for various common medicines, but https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/consumers/Safety-of-Medicines/Medicine-safety.asp says that a "very rare" side effect means one that happens to 1/10,000 people or less.
I find these numbers to be particularly confusing in light of how dangerous COVID itself is. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext#seccestitle140 says that at age 65, the IFR for COVID is about 1.7%, 1,700 times higher than your alleged risk of the vaccine and 17,000 times higher than what you claim the risk should be.
And according to https://www.cdc.gov/stroke/facts.htm, the baseline rate of ischemic stroke in the US is slightly over 2 per 1,000 people, again much higher than the alleged risk of the vaccine. For those of age 65, it seems to be slightly higher, increasing quickly with age: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.031659
For additional context, to have a 1 in 1 million risk of dying while driving, you would have to drive less than 100 miles (overall rate is about 1.5 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles in the US, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_United_States, although I think that number is outdated and is even higher now).
No medicine is completely safe, but this seems like a real no-brainer to me.
Vaccines have to be more good than bad. Almost all of them are. The covid vaccines get a wee bit murky in that regard when you get to younger age cohorts - especially younger male cohorts. There's a lot of good evidence that for young males in particular the virus carries fewer side effects than the mRNA vaccines, especially the 2nd dose of said vaccines. For older age groups I think you'd have to show pretty awful side effects for vaccination not to be worth it - so, for instance with over 65s you'd have to really have some bad frequency of side effects since they're so vulnerable to covid.
The other issue at hand here is efficacy, however. If the bivalent booster has risks but doesn't ultimately protect anyone any better than the 2x shots they already had (or 3x with the original booster) then there's really no good argument for them. The FDA lost two of its most experienced vaccine regulators over the Biden admin's "boosters for all" push, which wasn't based on any data whatsoever - we don't have any data showing that a 30 year old vaccinated woman will have further reduced mortality and morbidity with a booster shot or a bivalent booster. Most other countries, where their medical systems are more tuned towards cost and efficacy, have only authorized boosters for elderly people and those with severe immunocompromise (cancer patients). The US chose to push a one-size-fits-all policy with boosters, with zero evidence, and so...when a safety signal like this bubbles up it looks even worse than it would have if they'd pursued more evidence based recommendations.
More options
Context Copy link
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35653-z
Here's one estimate. I would never base policy on one study, usually that's something the CDC would do.
This is data from a year ago. We are talking about how the bivalent booster is associated with ischemic strokes, especially held against the risk of omicron.
Let's stick to relative risk? This is not useful.
Agreed. But we have to go places, like schools, small business, and our places of worship. So no one proposes stopping driving. I'm proposing stopping the EUA novel biotechnology vaccination campaign.
Which it is not by the very report you are using. You've jumped from "The CDC reported a signal which they investigated and found nothing" to "The vaccine is associated with strokes" as though that were proven and established.
Why not go the whole hog and say the vaccine causes women to ride broomsticks to the meeting with the Devil? You are determined the vaccine is bad and then go looking for straws to build your house with, instead of looking at established risks and then forming an opinion.
Definite side-effects of getting the vaccine that have been established: muscle pains, fever, diarrhoea, mild allergic reaction.
Possibility of more serious side-effects: anaphylactic reaction
If you want to argue that the risk for young men is too high as compared to the risk of contracting Covid and the effects of that illness, you have a valid case there. You do not have one for general scare-mongering.
Fair, I'm not going to rip off my wallpaper over elderly and at risk people receiving bivalent vaccines - precisely because I have a calculation of their quality life years remaining, that is very different from younger healthy people.
The exact people who benefit from a covid vaccine have less quality life years to live than those who do not.
The vaccine has a novel, not totally understood method of mRNA translation, and then goes through another not completely understood process of protein folding, and then enters the immune system (not completely understood). The pharmacokinetics of the nano lipid particle are not characterized or understood. And there is a concerning signal of a blood clot appearing in patient's brains.
I am not scare mongering, I am being highly critical, since I'm not the one defending the novel RNA transfection vaccines.
When they run trials for new vaccines, they will compare them to the harms that the RNA transfection vaccines caused, and the new vaccines are going to look amazing. My guess is they will use protein-adjuvanted methods.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I didn't ask for an estimate, I asked why 1 per 1 million is the higher tolerable level of risk.
Why does it being a year old matter? Even if the IFR is a few times lower, it's still much, much, much higher than what you're talking about.
Do you plan on explaining why or are you just going to make assertions?
It's entirely possible to build towns and cities that don't require you to drive literally everywhere, but no one seems to care about the risk from driving when designing cities or choosing where to live. At least, not at the magnitude you're talking about: 100 miles could be saved in 2 months by moving 1 mile closer to work, but does anyone care about that? Not in the slightest. A minuscule improvement in civil design would save orders of magnitude more lives than eliminating all risk from vaccines, with lots of other positive side effects to boot.
This entire post of yours is just one big isolated demand for rigor.
1 in one million, compared to 1 in 100,000, in our current data collection environment, is a good signal to keep track of if you are considering your options to receive a covid-19 vaccine. Perhaps you can take J&J, Novavax, or Covaxin and maintain protection against SARS-2.
The IFR is lower and vaccines are not denting hospitalization or death rates as they plummet from their previous heights (mass naïve infection). Most people have had a much better inoculation than a monovalent vaccine - they've had a SARS-2 infection.
Well, because a stroke as a cardiovascular event, I'm interested in the dynamic between mRNA vaccination and your cardiovascular system. A stroke, downstream of pathology, will offer valuable information when it goes above the baseline.
Well, you are demanding rigor, and yet I feel like this is a complex claim. Even a city would involve having people driving to bring supplies and transportation towards these centers - a mandatory risk.
We should be paving our public serology with only the best, most well understood vaccines that we are capable of developing and testing and passing on in our limited lifetimes. There is a broader umbrella of rigor that I am requesting to be frank.
A lot of the rigor I'm demanding will also take time, more time than has been allotted for these Bivalent updates. The first injectable, multi-transcriptional (unknown if combined or separated) mRNA vaccine to market has shown an unexpected safety signal.
...why? What makes it a good signal? Again, compared to the baseline number of strokes, you probably would not ever be able to detect these increases. If you wouldn't seriously consider the risk of driving 1000 miles, why would you seriously consider this risk?
Do you have some data for these claims? I've seen them, but I've also seen the opposite (e.g. that vaccine provides a better immune response than previous infection). Case and hospitalization rates are certainly nowhere near their high of a year ago (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html) but if the virus is mutating to become more contagious and less severe over time, and vaccines aren't actually effective, you should still see a high case count.
What valuable information? How does this answer my question?
I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. There are plenty of alternatives to using large motor vehicles in city centers, near pedestrians. Also, deliveries of goods represent a tiny fraction of all trips taken in populated areas, so you can still have those while reducing personal car trips. Urban design is a complex topic, but so is medicine. Do you want me to recommend you some urbanist sources?
This seems like a much weaker conclusion than:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Absurd safety standards for medicine are the norm. Lots of things with side effects and uncertain cost-benefit profiles (like lockdowns themselves!) are acceptable when if they happened to take the form of a pill or injection they'd be ten different kinds of illegal.
It is the norm, but even by those standards it feels inconsistent. I agree that many other policies are handled too cavalierly, but that's not really a good argument against what appears to be a legitimately safe vaccine.
I'm arguing in favour of the vaccine. It has a much better safety profile than a lot of things - it's just because it happens to take the form of medicine that we want a frankly ridiculous safety standard.
More options
Context Copy link
It's an EUA vaccine approved for an emergency. I think if you want to say "legitimately safe vaccine," it would be easier if Pfizer or Moderna could actually distribute an FDA approved and LABELLED as approved "Comirnaty" or "Spikevax" vial of vaccine.
Isn't this what they are already doing, or are you engaging in legal hair-splitting of the type about "the FDA issued approval labels for the original vaccine but the boosters are only recommended"? So if they're only "recommended" or "authorised" but not "approved" this means they're dangerous? There's a whole article about the difference between "approved" and "authorised" here.
You may have a point somewhere buried beneath all the scare-mongering, but it's hard to discern. Maybe less "The vaccine has been proven to cause strokes!" when no such thing has been established would make your case better.
The irony here is that people have been complaining the full FDA approval process takes too long and a modified version (say, where drugs are trialled for a shorter period and the FDA approves them but you take them at your own risk, or that drugs legal in the EU shouldn't have to go through the same process in the USA for approval) would be better to get drugs to market and treating patients faster.
You can't please everyone!
Your response didn't address the crux of FDA and EUA labelling. The entire power structure of our country, legal recourse and all, rests along these lines. Sorry to bring Foucault into the mix, but he's the ultimate nightmare of a public health pandemicist.
https://www.comirnaty.com/
Is this not VERY different from the medical advice given to people getting the EUA? Mix and match the first vial you can even get your hands on?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am much more worried about real, physiological implications of nanoparticle technology uptake. Not simple safety standard concerns (those already seem tattered).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link