site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31233 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023

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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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

Following the availability and use of the updated (bivalent) COVID-19 vaccines, CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a near real-time surveillance system, 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.

Pfizer is associated significantly with strokes - CDC is keeping us in the dark about the exact data.

This preliminary signal has not been identified with the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent. There also may be other confounding factors contributing to the signal identified in the VSD that merit further investigation. Furthermore, it is important to note that, to date, no other safety systems have shown a similar signal and multiple subsequent analyses have not validated this signal:

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.

No change in vaccination practice is recommended.

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:

About 75 percent of strokes occur in people 65 or older. In other words it is an increasing problem the older we get. It has been estimated that the chance of having a stroke double every decade after 55.

Stroke afflicts about 800,000 people a year and is estimated to occur at the rate of one American every 40 seconds. About three-fourths of the annual strokes are first-time strokes and the other quarter are recurrent. In other words most strokes are first-time episodes.

Stroke is the third leading cause of death among Americans. It kills about 140,000 people a year.

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%".

CDC has released a report today finding preliminary association between the Pfizer vaccine and stroke for those over 65 years of age.

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:

Often these safety systems detect signals that could be due to factors other than the vaccine itself. Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal in VSD represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal. CDC and FDA will continue to evaluate additional data from these and other vaccine safety systems. These data and additional analyses will be discussed at the upcoming January 26 meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee.

So you leading off with "Guys, guys, CDC found the vaccine booster causes strokes!" is incorrect.

met the statistical criteria to prompt additional investigation into whether there was a safety concern for ischemic stroke in people ages 65

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:

Overall, in 2019 in the U.S., there were an estimated 460,000 strokes (of those, two-thirds were ischemic), 190,000 stroke-related deaths and 3.83 million stroke disability-adjusted life years.

From 1990 to 2019, the change in the prevalence of stroke in the general population increased by about 60%. Incidence, death and disability-adjusted life years also increased by about 20%.

However, the age-standardized rates of stroke incidence, death and disability-adjusted life years declined by 20% to-30% in that same period, and the prevalence of stroke did not change. These decreases have plateaued in the last 10 years of the study period.

Since 1990, stroke incidence among older adults (age 50 and older) decreased nationwide, yet increased in younger adults (ages 15 to 49) in some geographic areas, including certain states in the South (Alabama, Arkansas) and the Midwest (Minnesota, North Dakota).

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:

In the new study, lead researcher Abdulaziz Bako, a postdoctoral fellow at Houston Methodist Hospital, and colleagues used aggregated nationwide data from 803,230 ICH hospitalizations. They calculated the rate of ICH over five consecutive three-year periods from 2004 to 2018. People were divided into four age groups: 18-44 years; 45-64 years; 65-74 years; and 75 years and older.

Overall, researchers found an 11% increase in the rate of ICH among U.S. adults over the 15-year study period. ICH increased at a faster rate for adults under age 65 compared to those 75 and older. The rate of increase also varied by region, climbing faster in the South, West and Midwest than it did in the Northeast. ICH stroke rates were 43% higher for men than women.

Among those who had ICH strokes, the percentage of people who had high blood pressure also rose, from 74.5% to 86.4% over the study period.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats