Vaccines and Therapeutics 2.0 & 3.0 Merge

[Res Ipsa]

I wouldn’t call everyone who refuses the COVID vaccine an anti-vaxxer. The leaders of the anti-vax movement have assembled a collection of pseudo-science that appears reasonable on the surface. One has to spend time and effort to investigate the information to discover just how deceptive it is.

That movement has coalesced with the antigovernment right over this particular vaccine. The vaccines, like everything having to do with COVID, has become highly politicized. This groups resistance is to this specific vaccine, not vaccines in general.

As a result, politically opposed are a receptive audience for the anti-vaxxer pseudoscience. It’s a grab bag of FUD, so people’s specific reasons vary.

Well that is all great and sensible and understandable. Except for the part where you fail to acknowledge that antivaxxers work hard to create anxieties about vaccination based on 'unknowns' and 'unanswered questions' and 'who is behind this?', basically because there are no hard data on which a rational decision for a normal person to refuse vaccination can be made.

You just need to make the point that all antivaxxers are the same and that obviously, we are not like them. The rest is all fine. Then you too can get a high five. I agree with you more but I agreed with Chap first, so let's agree on that.

Seriously, your performance art is getting in the way of whatever it is you are trying to say. Number 1, I don't assume that Chap is right. If I happen to agree with Chap, it's because I've done the reading and investigation myself and come to a conclusion that happens to be the same as Chap's. But I have no idea why you assume I have some obligation to repeat someone else's words when giving my own opinion. The hard data is what it is. We can look at it. And in some cases, the hard data will point one way on an issue. If I take ten water samples from my well and they all come up with dangerously high levels of coliform bacteria, then there is no hard data that support a conclusion that my water is safe to drink. And, based on the evidence, it would be irrational to claim that the water was safe.

If you think there is evidence that the risk of vaccination exceeds the benefit of the vaccination, then let's look at it. Otherwise, it appears to me that there is no evidence that the vaccine is unsafe. Yet, there is an organized movement of people who are presenting false and misleading information that leads others to refuse to get the vaccine for irrational reasons, resulting in unnecessary disease, suffering and death. I think unnecessary disease, suffering and death is a "bad" thing. It has nothing to do with whether someone is a "bad person."

I have no interest in getting high fives. I am interested in getting things right.

[Res Ipsa]

The anti-vax movement says it is pro “safe vaccine.” But that was a purely PR rebranding done some time ago. The movement never sets criteria for what a “safe” vaccine would look like and, to my knowledge, has never promoted a vaccine as safe. They make false statements about the contents of vaccines, false statements about side effects, misrepresent study results, cite studies of dubious validity while ignoring any study that doesn’t support their conclusions. They are like any other zealot — they just know vaccines are bad things created to harm them by bad people.

Yes. Agreed. Every person is part of “they” if they are not part of us. They are bad.

No. Not agreed. Every person is a them and every person is an us. I've never claimed "they" are "bad." That's your straw man.

[Res Ipsa]

I’m not sure why you do what looks like some kind of da da performance art rather than simply stating your objection to something someone said. If you’re trying to communicate something, it’s not clear to me what it is.

The same point extends to objections to vaccination.

Saying that ‘the vaccine isn’t 100% effective’ is not a reason to refuse it. It’s only a reason to believe that it might not prevent infection for that person considering vaccination. This is still a ‘nothing to lose’ scenario. Either one remains unvaccinated and may get COVID, or one gets vaccinated, and may get COVID … (and) regardless of what could happen in either situation after infection.

So what is ‘the thing’ that tilts the decision in favor of not being vaccinated?

What fear, or circumstance, or assumed outcome is driving the decision?

I really think you'd have to drill down to an individual level to answer that. Our brains aren't very good at risk assessment.

[canpakes]

Speaking in metaphors is good. Black and white thinking is bad.

Is there a category assignment for someone not knowing why they’d refuse to be vaccinated? : D

[canpakes]

.
Another claimed reason for not getting vaccinated just suffered from a reality check -

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/heal ... ccine.html

Heart Problem More Common After Covid-19 Than After Vaccination, Study Finds

The research did not assess the risks specifically for young males, who are the most likely to develop the rare side effect.

By Emily Anthes and Noah Weiland
Published Aug. 25, 2021
Updated Sept. 1, 2021

The Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine is associated with an increased risk of myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle, a large new study from Israel confirms. But the side effect remains rare, and Covid-19 is more likely to cause myocarditis than the vaccine is, scientists reported on Wednesday.

The research, which is based on the electronic health records of about two million people who are 16 or older, provides a comprehensive look at the real-world incidence of various adverse events after both vaccination and infection with the coronavirus.

Although the study did not break down the myocarditis risks by age or by sex, the median age of people who developed the condition after vaccination was 25, and 19 of the 21 cases were in males, the researchers reported.

In addition to myocarditis, the Pfizer vaccine was also associated with an increased risk of swollen lymph nodes, appendicitis and shingles, although all three side effects remained uncommon in the study. Coronavirus infection was not associated with these side effects, but it did increase the odds of several potentially serious cardiovascular problems, including heart attacks and blood clots.

“Coronavirus is very dangerous, and it’s very dangerous to the human body in many ways,” said Ben Reis, a co-author of the new study and the director of the predictive medicine group at the Boston Children’s Hospital Computational Health Informatics Program.

He added, “If the reason that someone so far has been hesitating to get the vaccine is fear of this very rare and usually not very serious adverse event called myocarditis, well, this study shows that that very same adverse event is actually associated with a higher risk if you’re not vaccinated and you get infected.”

[canpakes]

.
Uh oh. Someone over at Fox News slipped up, and posted this report -

Surgical masks reduce COVID-19 spread: study

The study looked at 350,000 individuals across 600 paired villages

By Peter Aitken | Fox News

A new study that examined the effects of mask-wearing on the spread of COVID-19 found that even partial adoption helps to limit the spread.

The study, led by researchers at Stanford Medicine and Yale University, was a large-scale, randomized trial using 350,000 people from 600 villages in rural Bangladesh. Those living in villages were randomly assigned a number of interventions to promote the use of masks.

Researchers found that those living in the villages with such interventions were around 11% less likely to develop COVID-19 than those who did not. The effectiveness increased to nearly 35% for people over 60 years old, according to Stanford Medicine.

"Our study is the first randomized controlled trial exploring whether facial masking prevents COVID-19 transmission at the community level," said Ashley Styczynski, one of the lead authors and an infectious disease fellow at Stanford. "It’s notable that even though fewer than 50% of the people in the intervention villages wore masks in public places, we still saw a significant risk reduction in symptomatic COVID-19 in these communities, particularly in elderly, more vulnerable people."

The study also looked at the effect of using cloth instead of surgical masks: Cloth masks did reduce the overall likelihood of experiencing symptoms of respiratory illness, but it was not as effective as using a surgical mask.

https://www.foxnews.com/health/surgical ... read-study

[Moksha]

Q - Which country leads the world in the number of COVID-19 deaths?

A - The USA.

Q - Why?

A - Freedom of choice.

[Gunnar]

The United States, with 4.25% of the world's population has had about 15% of the world's corona virus deaths. More than the combined total from the world's two most populous nations, India and China, with a combined population more than 8 times that of the U.S. That is inescapable reality! There is simply no honest or reasonable way to spin away the fact that no nation on earth handled the pandemic crisis worse than the U.S. under Trump's leadership, with the possible exception of Bolsonaro of Brazil, who is practically a Trump Clone. For that reason alone (though that is not the only reason) Trump should never be permitted to hold any public office again!

Meanwhile, other Trump clones (most notably DeSantis of Florida and Abbot of Texas) seem to be doing their darnedest to oppose vaccination and masking mandates which are the best hope we have of finally getting control of this pandemic and is working in the states that have accepted them. Vermont seems to be doing the best job, so far, of mitigating this pandemic, because despite their governor being a Republican, he has encouraged the very measures that the most extreme Republican governors have opposed, and has succeeded in getting a higher percentage of his constituents fully vaccinated than any other state.

[Res Ipsa]

Man! I got my first Shinvax dose yesterday. Arm is pretty sore today. Second dose in 60 days. Not looking forward to that one.

[Jersey Girl]

Man! I got my first Shinvax dose yesterday. Arm is pretty sore today. Second dose in 60 days. Not looking forward to that one.

UGH. I know! That's the only one that has really given me trouble. My sore arm and swelling lasted a couple or three days. Arm and neck stiffness on that side too. The first time I ever got it I was allegedly too young for it, but I sorta talked the base into doing it. Don't know why that one is so hard. I hardly react at all to any other shot. Just remember, it's better than the alternative.