No, Virginia, Natural Immunity is Not Six Times As Good As Vaccine Immunity

Michael Siegel

Michael Siegel is an astronomer living in Pennsylvania. He blogs at his own site, and has written a novel.

Related Post Roulette

209 Responses

  1. Brandon Berg
    Ignored
    says:

    This could be correctly rephrased as “people who were vaccinated were six times more likely to be infected than people who had had prior infections.” There’s no one correct interpretation of “six times more effective,” but I don’t think this one is obviously wrong.

    Of course, for the other reasons you mention, it’s still much better to be vaccinated than not.Report

  2. CW Jeepers
    Ignored
    says:

    Omicron is the world’s mildest cold on record. It spreads like measles, though — it’s even down in Antarctica, and that was with cordons and testing on every human.

    There’s not enough data, worldwide, to say that the unvaccinated are hitting hospitals with Omicron more than the vaccinated (South Africa didn’t see all that many hospitalizations, and they’re in general not vaccinated. Europe’s been seeing more hospitalizations, but they’re heavily vaccinated.). It’s just too mild to get the data you’d need (we continue to pool data).

    Saying otherwise is called “wishful thinking” or “putting trust before numbers.”

    What we see now is the rise of the “selfish vaccine” — people are being informed that getting the vaccine hurts the unvaccinated (in that it makes the disease spread more, in general), but that “You Are Protected from Death.”Report

    • Philip H in reply to CW Jeepers
      Ignored
      says:

      We have numbers:

      In December, compared to fully vaccinated persons in each group shown below, the monthly rates of COVID-19-associated hospitalizations were:

      16X Higher in Unvaccinated Adults Ages 18 Years and Older

      9x Higher
      in Unvaccinated Adolescents
      ​Ages 12–17 Years

      12x Higher
      in Unvaccinated Adults​
      Ages 18–49 years

      17x Higher
      in Unvaccinated Adults​
      Ages 50-64 years

      17x Higher
      in Unvaccinated Adults​
      Ages 65 Years and Older

      https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitalizations-vaccinationReport

      • CW Jeepers in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Do your numbers happen to distinguish between Delta and Omicron?
        Survey points to no.
        Do your numbers work from the super-spreading event in NYC, in December?
        Survey points to no. (Yes, should any of those weebs have died, that is added to the numbers. My point is that you are working from a faulty dataset.)

        December numbers are spoiled, in terms of splitting out Omicron — at least at this level of aggregation.

        I could maybe buy England’s data for the last 30 days. Or South Africa’s.

        Wait till we get data before trying to prove your point.Report

        • Philip H in reply to CW Jeepers
          Ignored
          says:

          England’s data is consistent with the US data:

          The new U.K. study also found Covid vaccines reduce the risk of hospitalization from omicron across the board, though a booster dose provides the highest level of protection. The latest data adds to a growing body of evidence demonstrating that although the vaccines have taken a hit from omicron, they still provide significant levels of protection compared to people who are unvaccinated.

          https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/31/omicron-hospitalization-risk-upside-vaccine-protection-good-uk-study-.html

          Spain seems to be backing this up:

          Analyzing the deaths in this northeastern region between December 23 and January 12 per 100,000 inhabitants, the mortality rate among individuals aged 70 and 80 is five times higher for the unvaccinated. Something similar occurs in other age demographics. In the 70-79 population, 50 deaths per 100,000 people are reported among the unvaccinated, compared to 10 per 100,000 among the vaccinated, i.e. five times less. Meanwhile, in the 60-69 demographic, the disparity is repeated: the mortality rate among the unvaccinated is 15 per 100,000 people while, for the vaccinated, it is 5.5 per 100,000.

          https://english.elpais.com/society/2022-01-18/the-success-of-covid-19-vaccines-against-omicron-vaccinated-up-to-five-times-less-likely-to-be-hospitalized.html

          We have data. You just don’t like it. Which I get, but I can’t really help you.Report

          • Saul Degraw in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            Don’t feed the troll, it only makes them stronger. I am not always consistent to be fair but it something to strive for.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Saul Degraw
              Ignored
              says:

              I’m a scientist. I don’t like letting bad data or data free arguments purporting to have data slide. Sure I’m feeding a troll, but I’m also providing our more intellectual readers something real to latch on to.

              Besides, he/she always stops once i get a certain number of numbers posted.Report

          • CW Jeepers in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            We also have data, which you don’t like. Fortunately, you don’t need to like it for it to kill you.
            Do you know your batch number? (howbad.info is an interesting resource.)

            The data our government is pulling from Britain is saying that in the 60 yr old cohort, hospitalizations for Omicron are 6 times as likely for the vaccinated as the unvaccinated (and this is with sizable populations on both sides, not 5% for either).Report

            • Philip H in reply to CW Jeepers
              Ignored
              says:

              I’ve put sources in nearly all my posts. It might help your case if you did the same.Report

              • CW Jeepers in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Cited howbad.info in my last post.

                Will continue to cite as I get a chance, although “personal interview” often remains my primary source, as I am fortunate enough to know someone deeply involved in biostatistical analysis. (I am not pulling anything out of my behookie).

                pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34989238/

                pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35016196/ Last line of abstract is full of unintentional hilarity. “Please fund me! I promise to love vaccines that don’t work!”Report

              • Philip H in reply to CW Jeepers
                Ignored
                says:

                that howbad site is hilarious. Yep it has data, and told me my dose 1batch (which is written on each your vaccine card each time you get it) had:

                DEATHS – 35
                DISABILITIES – 43
                LIFE THREATENING ILLNESSES -53

                If your friend is really a biomedical statistician, they will tell you what the probability of death is by comparing those numbers to the batch size used. I don’t have that data, so I won’t go further down the rabbit hole. It’s hilarious to me that you’d so tout a website that says

                USA Data : All data is sourced from VAERS, a public database of over 700,000 adverse reaction reports for Moderna, Pfizer and Janssen Covid 19 vaccines in the USA.

                after dismissing my data above from the same source.

                As to your pubmed studies – your first citation is to a modeling study that leads with this caveat – “However, a complete experimental evaluation of Omicron might take weeks or even months.” It then goes on to say ” Omicron may be over 10 times more contagious than the original virus or about 2.8 times as infectious as the Delta variant.” which has been widely report in the mainstream press, and no one is debating here. Going to the actual article, in the results section we find this – “In general, it is essentially impossible to accurately characterize the full impact of Omicron’s S protein mutations on the current vaccines in the world’s populations.” Seems to me that drawing gran conclusions on that study would go against what the authors are warning about. The entire rest of their analysis focuses on the monoclonal antibody treatments, and with some compelling results that they may need to be updated. Which again, no one is disputing.

                Your other study is pre-press, meaning it has yet to be peer reviewed. Given the number of pre-press studies that have been retracted over the last two years relating to COVID, I’ll wait until they are done to see if it holds up.Report

              • CW Jeepers in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, it’s citing VAERS. The FOIA evidence shown there is that there are placebo “doses” that some people might have taken, and other lots that were significantly more… problematic.

                I don’t take VAERS as the gold-standard, because we shouldn’t. There are numerous documented cases of women being deemed “hysterical” because they were saying that the vaccine caused variations in their monthlies.

                Thanks for playing vaccine lotto!Report

              • CW Jeepers in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Omicron shows evidence of serial passage through rodents (lab mice):
                plantbasednews.org/culture/ethics/hamsters-killed-covid-pet-shop/

                Original COVID19 shows evidence of serial passage through ferrets (here we’re noticing mink, who are closely related):
                http://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/what-the-mink-coronavirus-pandemic-has-taught-us

                You can ignore NatGeo’s color commentary, it’s looking to find any other reasonable excuse other than “Fauci did it.”Report

              • Harriet in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m also a little wiggy about citing the cdc around here, as apparently that gets posts nixed.

                Can you look up the CDC’s advice about fecal transmission of COVID19 through airborne means? It’s rather interesting, if old, data that hasn’t been shared widely through the news media. (and it also provides some compelling reasons why masks aren’t as good as people think).Report

              • Philip H in reply to Harriet
                Ignored
                says:

                I cite the CDC all the time. So far none of it has gotten me nixed. SO that may not be your problem.

                I’ve read the fecal studies. They aren’t cited because they haven’t pointed to a significant impact. Nice try though.Report

              • Harriet in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Thank you! I appreciate anyone reading links.

                http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4692156/
                That’s a nice survey of the problem. As noted, a “rapidly decaying” virus like COVID19 is less of a problem than something like cdiff or ecoli.

                Medical guidance from the DOD cites them frequently, particularly in terms of contact with the vaccinated (when you understand how much bacteria a “handless” flush system makes airborne, you’ll understand why that is.)

                Are you aware that fecal samples and nasal samples of covid19 differ?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Harriet
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m aware, and that a lot of places are tracking outbreaks by sampling municipal sewage. Which has also been widely reported . . . I sure would love to know where you are going with this?Report

              • Harriet in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Making the case that “masks” are an extraordinarily stupid intervention. Particularly when we could have simply mandated better airflow/HEPA filtration. (Again, citing CDC, 99.97% filtration per Air Change, and you can get 10 of those per hour with a good fan).

                But, you see, that wouldn’t have gotten the Science Zealots to have visible crucifixes to carry around as symbols of their faith. And this was a Very Important Thing to certain factions in power.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Harriet
                Ignored
                says:

                As yes, filtration vs. masks.

                Bazinga!

                Or some such . . . since we apparently can’t do this and, we must all do this or . . . .Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I do think that the Nature study that showed that one-layer cloth masks were worse than nothing and two-layer cloth masks were only just barely better than nothing was an interesting one. It argued for KN95 masks or, better yet, N95 masks.

                My pointing this out was spun as me being “anti-mask”.

                WHICH WAS WEIRD.Report

              • Harriet in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I’d be willing to go along with masks (as a form of “we’re all in this together” or “costume jewelry”), if we got the Actual Interventions that Matter.Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to CW Jeepers
      Ignored
      says:

      Omicron is the world’s mildest cold on record.

      Death rate (google, looking at graph of “deaths”) strongly suggests otherwise.Report

      • CW Jeepers in reply to Dark Matter
        Ignored
        says:

        Excess Deaths at this point is massively confounded with “Excess Deaths caused by the Vaccine” — let alone the confounding issue of Delta.

        18-64 years of age overall death rate is up 40%, which is much, much more than 3 sigma (actuaries are upset. this affects term life insurance, so there’s money and business on the line). This should concern you, particularly when the cited “average age of death” from COVID19 is upwards of 70 years of age (Citing a Nature article on the subject).Report

        • Philip H in reply to CW Jeepers
          Ignored
          says:

          Excess Deaths at this point is massively confounded with “Excess Deaths caused by the Vaccine”

          How many people have died after getting a vaccine?

          Between December 2020 and July 19th, 2021, VAERS received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018% of doses) among people who got a vaccine, but this does not mean the vaccine caused these deaths. Doctors and safety monitors carefully review the details of each case to see if it might be linked to the vaccine. There are three deaths that appear to be linked to blood clots that occurred after people got the J&J vaccine. Since we now know how to correctly treat people who develop these blood clots, future deaths related to this very rare side effect can be prevented.

          https://covid-101.org/science/how-many-people-have-died-from-the-vaccine-in-the-u-s/

          We’ve lost 889,197 to this disease. Quit it.Report

          • CW Jeepers in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            I know you can read, so stop pretending that you can’t. VAERS is massively under-reported, and always has been.

            Do you want me to pull how many people we’ve lost to influenza? I’m willing to wager we’ve got at least an order of magnitude more deaths from it. (Yes, this is talking over a hundred years of data. This is also talking about 100 years of acquired immunity, and a goodly timeframe of “strain-based” vaccines.)Report

            • Philip H in reply to CW Jeepers
              Ignored
              says:

              The 2019-2020 flu season is believed to have killed between 24,000 to 62,000 Americans. so far, the 2021-2022 flu season is estimated to have killed 1,100 – 3,200 Americans.

              So it would seem you’d loose your wager.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Everyone who would die of the flu is dying of covid instead.

                Given covid is like 20x nastier, we should see flu deaths down for the next decade or so.Report

              • CW Jeepers in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Bad influenza season is 60,000 deaths. That’s 2017.

                2019 was both mild, and conflated with COVID19 deaths that were improperly labeled. (I know when my workplace got the initial version of COVID19, it laid most people out for a week.)

                Again, you are saying I’d lose a wager that I’m winning. Over 100 years, we have — let’s be kind, 6,200,000 deaths, plus the big one of the Great Influenza, which the CDC is citing as 675,000 people.

                Perspective, dude. A hundred years means you get a lot of deaths.Report

              • Philip H in reply to CW Jeepers
                Ignored
                says:

                your numbers suggest Flu deaths at 620,000 per decade from flu (on average). We’ve had 890K deaths in two years from COVID.

                Perspective dude. 2 years means a lot of COVID deaths.Report

              • CW Jeepers in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah. It’s not a terribly deadly disease, for being a novel virus. (Do I need to tell you what the smallpox epidemic did to the First Nations?)

                Omicron is so “not deadly” it’s reasonable to assert it was created as a vaccine (particularly given the evidence of serial passage).Report

              • Philip H in reply to CW Jeepers
                Ignored
                says:

                Troll on brother man, troll on.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            You beat me to it. Same link and everything.

            I’ll add to that 6k is going to be a massive overcount because of the way the data is gathered and/or if your health is so amazingly frail that a vaccine can kill you then getting Covid would certainly.

            I’m also deeply skeptical of those blood clot deaths.

            Pick a large population, wait a while, and apply filters to look at just the people who died. There will be statistical quirks that can’t be repeated and supply no useful data on the future.Report

            • DavidTC in reply to Dark Matter
              Ignored
              says:

              and/or if your health is so amazingly frail that a vaccine can kill you then getting Covid would certainly.

              That’s the thing that gets me about that entire concept.

              There is _nothing_ that happens to you when you get a vaccine that doesn’t happen when you get actual Covid.

              I am sure that taking the vaccine has killed a few people, or harmed them, and I am also 100% sure if they had caught Covid those bad things, or worse things, also would have happened.

              The only way ‘not getting vaccinated’ comparison works is if the alternative to vaccination is not getting Covid, and the only way to actually do that is complete isolation.

              Which means every single person saying ‘I don’t want to get sick from the vacccine’ as a way to complain about _restrictions_ is talking nonsense…the people who are legitimately unable to get a vaccine because of actual health issues have been stuck in their house for years because they are aware that Covid is even more dangerous to them.

              I’m also deeply skeptical of those blood clot deaths.

              The increase in blood clot deaths is actually Covid, not the vaccine.

              This is, yet again, another ‘the Covid vaccine may in very rare circumstances cause the sort of things that tons of people get and die of when getting actual Covid’.Report

  3. Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    How helpful is it to look at case numbers at this point with so much potential for undiagnosed cases, asymptomatic cases, mild cases, cases confirmed with home tests that go unreported, etc.? The numbers that come from controlled studies seem reliable, hospitalization data seems reliable, but everything else just feels really hard to trust.

    Also, how is information gathered regarding the vaccination status of those who test positive? I’ve gotten tested a few times and I don’t recall being asked about my vaccination status (I’m fully boostered). Are they pulling that from the vaccine database(s)? Or do they inquire upon a positive test (I’ve never tested positive)?

    To be clear, I’m not doubting the broader message here… just wondering how we make sense of case counts and the like given all the issues with their recording.Report

  4. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    I remember having these sorts of discussions with 9-11 truthers, where it was like creationists. Just a nonstop Gish Gallop of easily debunked lies and absurdities.

    The only saving grace was that they were few and marginalized, and viewed as the cranks and nutcases they were.

    Now, they comprise the bulk of the Republican Party and have the power of governors, state legislatures, and the courts on their side.Report

    • Harriet in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      Do you really want to discuss the science? Because we can talk about Antigenic Original Sin, if you want. I think it provides a reasonable explanation as to why, despite waning efficiency (WHO has vaccines at sub 50% efficacy for Delta — which is under Trump’s lowball “surely we’ll do better than this” threshhold for calling it a vaccine under OWS), we aren’t getting “newly targetted” vaccines.

      If you don’t believe in this explanation, offer another one. (Cain’s explanation is that it is “too expensive and time-consuming” — which doesn’t explain why we get a new flu vaccine every year. And these new miltech vaccines are supposed to be quicker to turnaround).Report

      • JS in reply to Harriet
        Ignored
        says:

        Is antigenic original sin the new buzzword you just learned? I take it’s running around the anti-vaxxer/it’s just a cold bro sites.

        Well, it does help me know who to mute.

        But I can tell that, with you, we can’t just discuss the science. Because you just have scientific sounding words you don’t understand.

        A medical sovereign citizen, chanting your magic words. certain it means you don’t have to pay taxes.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to JS
          Ignored
          says:

          It’s a buzzterm that shows up a lot in the Reddit COVID-19 Subreddit.Report

          • JS in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Which is where I’m assuming Hariet heard it, and sov-cited it into her lingo.

            There has been some worry that a massive epidemic with several big strains that swept the world could cause imprinting problems with antibodies (or that wide-scale vaccinations that occurred THEN a sufficiently different strain could cause it) that would lower antibody effectiveness, by basically imprinting the first strain (or vaccination) ideal antibody pattern in place, meaning subsequent strain-targeted versions wouldn’t occur as much protection.

            A few problems with that. I mean first and foremost, everyone was going to get exposed ANYWAYS, so it’s not like imprinting on the dominant strain was any different than everyone getting COVID, except your antibodies were more efficient against that strain. So the worry with OAS is that, okay, you get an omicron specific booster and your body mostly just pumps out the original strain antibodies as it’s “close enough”. (Which, hey, still work against omicron. Not as well, but look at hospitalization stats).

            Second, imprinting (or OAS) happens with natural exposure too — so vaccination or not, if it was gonna happen with COVID it was gonna happen.

            Third, of course, that “not as effective” doesn’t mean “not effective at all” — yearly flu shots are more effective than no flu shot, even though OAS is a factor with the flu (in general, the strain of flu your immune system handles the best is the first strain you were exposed to).

            Lastly — and most importantly — Moderna ran a clinical trial against Beta and showed that, indeed, the immune system churned out beta-specific antibodies in response to a Beta booster, regardless of prior infection or vaccination against the alpha strain. OAS was a worry with SARS, as their was some evidence there that the immune response against a SARS strain was ‘sticky’ against other strains (ie: pump out more of the original instead of adapting) but it does not look the case with COVID.

            In short, people who are not experts in the field read a post of someone who tortured a summary full of words they didn’t understand into SUPPORTING what they wanted (words be damned) reposted it, and viola — Harriet shows up here spewing magical gibberish she’s certain supports her belief 100%.

            She’s “done her research” — by which she’s read other non-experts she agrees with say the magic words and come to the conclusion she wants.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to JS
              Ignored
              says:

              It would be hilarious to see the bibliography for all these “independent researchers”.

              1. Tweet from Donald J. Trump (Actually JFK JR in disguise)
              2. Reddit post from BigDik6969
              3. Blog post at Gateway Pundit
              4. Speech by RFK Jr.
              5. My cat, speaking through my earbudsReport

              • Dopefish in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “Reads all of Facebook and Twitter, then predicts election.”

                Seriously. Does it matter -who- did that?
                There’s a plausible base of “could this work.”
                Then there’s the plausibility of “Could someone do this?” (yes, of course they could. CIA keeps a backup).Report

            • Harriet in reply to JS
              Ignored
              says:

              Imprinting can occur with natural exposure — but with natural exposure, you have a much broader base of antibodies to start with. And I wonder if the studies comparing “natural immunity” versus “natural immunity plus vaccination” might have something to say about the imprinting with natural immunity, in this specific situation?

              Counterpoint to your discussion of influenza, in specific:
              pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24648486/

              Can you send a link to the Moderna clinical trial? I would like to read it in full.

              Also, if that clinical trial is reputable, why didn’t they release a Delta targetted vaccine? Or an Omicron targetted vaccine?

              We are injecting people with a vaccine for a virus that was never present in America (original COVID19, which is pre-alpha).

              I am asking questions. This is what a good scientist does. Perhaps you have a better explanation than I’ve come up with. It happens, believe it or not.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to JS
              Ignored
              says:

              Oh, I’m not agreeing with Harriet.

              I think that there is a lot of misinformation out there and some of it, unfortunately, was spoken by the people we were supposed to trust.

              And “when I get new information, I change my mind! WHAT DO YOU DO?” response, given often enough, gets an answer of “I take into account how many times I’d had to walk back previous assertions and I recalibrate my confidence in my new and current position.”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                That last sentence is Creationist illogic.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                You can take the boy out of the creationist, but you can’t take the creationist out of the boy.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                No, not really. It’s a position that says “Am I now certain that I have all of the information that I need to reach an absolute, rather than tentative, conclusion?”

                And the wacky thing about getting enough new information enough times is that that results in you reaching more tentative conclusions rather than more absolute ones.

                I rather expect that the positions that will be right and just and proper to have come late April, early May will be significantly different.

                And we will agree that all of us should be expected to live the way our leadership has demonstrated that they do.

                It’s coming. Mark it down.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The way you react to “reaching more tentative conclusions rather than more absolute ones”…is very fundamentalist.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Which is weird because fundamentalism tends to show itself by requiring a strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.

                Could you go into more detail?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Sure.
                You’re complaining that authority figures make mistakes and retractions and are constantly revising their advice.

                And you’re saying this like its a bad thing!

                As if you are hoping for them to issue a pronouncement of absolute unwavering truth which never needs revisiting.

                This is the basis of fundamentalism where the scripture is carved in stone and remains ever the same for all time.

                And on a deeper level, it is wholly at odds with the Enlightenment idea of engaged empowered citizens to review the world and make their own decisions.

                In every single field, we as citizens are confronted with a confusing landscape of facts and advice and statements.

                Whether to wear a seatbelt or not, smoke cigarettes or not, have unprotected sex or not;
                Whether to go to war or not, adopt a health law or not;

                None of these issues were ever any more clear than Covid. The “science” was never any more settled than Covid, and the pronouncements of authorities was never any less confusing or erratic than Covid.

                Yet we as adults, were able to sift through the blizzard of confusion and discern what is most likely the correct course of action without complaining about the lack of absolute conclusions.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                He’s doing the exact opposite.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re complaining that authority figures make mistakes and retractions and are constantly revising their advice.

                Mistakes? My complaint about London Breed in the club isn’t that she was making a whoopsie-doodle.

                As for the authorities making retractions and revising, that’s par for the course.

                My complaint wasn’t that the authorities do that. When you get new information, you’re *SUPPOSED* to change your mind.

                As if you are hoping for them to issue a pronouncement of absolute unwavering truth which never needs revisiting.

                Nope, not at all. What I am complaining about is not their lack of pronouncements of absolute unwavering truth.

                My statement was, and let me copy and paste this:

                And “when I get new information, I change my mind! WHAT DO YOU DO?” response, given often enough, gets an answer of “I take into account how many times I’d had to walk back previous assertions and I recalibrate my confidence in my new and current position.”

                I am asking for a recalibration of confidence. Down, mind.

                And you’re calling this “fundamentalist”.

                I think you’re confused.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Your copy pasted paragraph appears to directly contradict the preceding one.

                You say you’re not complaining about their lack of absolute truth, yet you go on to say that in response to their repeated “walk backs” you are “recalibrating your confidence in your new position”.

                Sorry man, if that wasn’t what you meant to say, try to write more clearly.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not complaining about their lack of absolute truth.

                I’m still not.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                You have to understand. None of this is about the actual external world, it is about the imagined internal metal states of people who talk about the external world. Given my client base, I have dealt with many scientists and doctors over the years. They are far more aware than any of us that their expert knowledge is tentative and subject to modification in the light of further evidence. They have all modified their views on something in their field for precisely that reason. They don’t talk about that all the time for the same reason that fish don’t constantly talk about being wet. It’s true, obvious, and irrelevant. But they are far more aware of it, in great detail, than we are.
                Reminds me of when someone criticizes, say, the current state of race relations, and someone else can be relied upon to pipe up that the critic didn’t issue a ceremonial disclaimer that, well, of course, things are better now than they were 100 years ago. True, but pointless.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, so long as the people doing the altruistic punishment/policing on the part of the scientists and doctors maintain no knowledge of what was said last time, I guess nothing could possibly go wrong.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                People get scientific advice all the time and act on it all the time. And sometimes things go wrong, either because they misunderstood the scientific advice, or the scientific advice was wrong, or because they made a clumsy effort at squaring the science with other things. There may be another way for the world to work, but I don’t see an alternative — like listening to internet blowhards — that is likely to be an improvement.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Do you see a difference between “I’ll do this” and “I’ll engage in altruistic punishment to make sure that other people do this”?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Of course. But do you actually deny that sometimes people need to be told, or even made, to do things that they don’t want to do? And that sometimes it is right to do this? If your point is that sometimes people will do this wrong, well, duh.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I agree that, sometimes, it’s appropriate to force people to do things and to shame them if you can’t use force.

                If, however, you are the policeman and you want to know why people think that all cops are bastards, you might want to look a little bit at the history of policing.

                “But cops are the good guys!”, you may wish to assert.

                Well, some people have longer memories than others, I guess.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The alternative to people making decisions on the best available evidence and sometimes getting it wrong is what again? I mean in the actual external world, not in imagined mental states.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                CJ, my issue isn’t “sometimes people get things wrong”.

                My issue is that “people don’t remember all of the times that they got things wrong and that’s seriously relevant when it comes to picking up the mantle of altruistic punishment”.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So the alternative is an imagined mental state?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m also using conversations with people to get a general idea of mental states.

                Is that fair or are we going the solipsism route?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Human memory is fallible and motivated. Got it.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes.

                And we need to take that into account when we engage in altruistic punishment.

                There’s a lot of stuff that follows, of course. Institutional trust, moral authority, that sort of thing.

                It’s why keeping in mind the last half dozen or so times the policing was done under mistaken (motivated, even) assumptions is important.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                “The alternative to people making decisions on the best available evidence and sometimes getting it wrong is what again?”

                right

                and when people disagree with the reasoning behind those decisions it’s entirely reasonable to dress up like the Grim Reaper and chase them around the beachReport

              • CJColucci in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                There will, of course, be times when that is warranted, but you can’t seriously be saying that whenever anyone disagrees he (or she or they) can do that. So what are you saying?Report

        • Harriet in reply to JS
          Ignored
          says:

          Antigenic Original Sin is circa 1960. Scientific humor, as you can imagine, varies based on the decade.

          I don’t read those sites. That’s why people sometimes struggle to talk to me — I’m not on their talking points.

          I listen to people on the OWS docket, and other data-driven analytic folks. Do you really want to talk about who discusses their menstrual period with their clergy?

          Know any actuaries? You might want to listen to them, about now, particularly if you’re bankrolling term life insurance.Report

          • JS in reply to Harriet
            Ignored
            says:

            >Antigenic Original Sin is circa 1960.

            So?

            You clearly don’t know what it is, much less whether it applies here. You seem to think it’s some universal law, rather than one potential wrinkle in the human immune system when facing a virus — one that may or may not occur, based on massively complex factors you also don’t understand.

            But by all means, invoke the deep magic of jargon and conclude you’re right.

            >I listen to people on the OWS docket, and other data-driven analytic folks

            Occupy Wall street? Operation Warp Speed?

            >I don’t read those sites. That’s why people sometimes struggle to talk to me — I’m not on their talking points.

            No, that’s not it at all. So have you figured out that one cool trick to not paying your taxes yet? Do you tell officers you’re “travelling” and that your name in all uppercase is a separate corporation to you?Report

            • Harriet in reply to JS
              Ignored
              says:

              Operation Warp Speed. He sits through 6 hour FDA Advisory board meetings.

              Today’s blast from the past:
              dpbh.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dpbhnvgov/content/Boards/BOH/Meetings/2021/SENEFF~1.PDF

              Given a 5% a-priori expected success rate, how implausible do you find the “every vaccine works” mantra that is the current state of information?Report

    • Nobody in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      Yeah, wrap your mind around the govt.’s explanation of Building 7’s collapse due to ‘regular office fires’ (direct quote) …
      Personally, for me? Nah. I don’t have any ‘theories’ but it does seem odd to me that somehow, since that day, the usual sit-around-the-table cable news panels, talk radio shows, newsmagazines, newspapers, etc, somehow — some way — – never, ever talk about 9/11 except for on that day.
      I mean, they could hold a panel discussion on that topic, for example.
      Because selling me office fires caused that collapse is where I stop.
      There are plenty of books that cite original documents. There are facts which are not in dispute which have raised interesting questions— this being the internet, my guess is you haven’t dipped into them based on your comment.

      Kean and Hamilton said straight out they weren’t allowed access to enough information to do a proper 9/11 Commission report.

      That doesn’t even compare to what’s happening here but it’s fascinating to see someone doing it.
      PS Lefty since mid 90’sReport

  5. Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    I take your points on the math, and have no issue with that.

    From a Comms/Public Policy perspective, we need to shift how we’re discussing Vaccines. Based on other diseases and standard vocabulary, we talked about the vaccines as immunity.

    Alpha = Immunity (eventual herd Immunity)
    Delta = Breakthrough (but some sense of immunity)
    Omicron = Mitigation (beyond breakthrough, not really immune)

    The data shows that vaccinations are the best mitigation strategy during the pandemic… I don’t think any of us really have a notion of ‘immunity’ like we do for, say, Polio or other diseases. Not any more.

    I don’t think it helps from a rhetorical or public policy perspective to keep talkin about immunity at all (at this point)… it’s all mitigation and reduction of deaths – we’ll see what the next phase holds, but for now? Just talk personal risk reduction and mitigation against serious cases and death.Report

    • Chris in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      It’s interesting that most of us have understood for years that the flu vaccine was meant to reduce risk of infection to some extent, and reduce the severity of infection a great deal, but it’s been difficult, in no small part due to a failure of communication from the government, media, and experts, to get people to see the COVID vaccination the same way.

      Of course, I’ve known people who got the flu after vaccination and were very confused, because they thought the vaccine meant they couldn’t get it, but those people have, by and large, continued to get the shots after learning that it’s they’re not providing immunity.Report

      • Harriet in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        People don’t understand influenza. You do get immunity, anywhere from 2 years to at least 10 years. But it’s strain-based, and that means that your H1N1 shot (as just one example) isn’t going to give you much protection against H3N9. [Each shot has more than one strain. Diplomatic flu vaccine is more than 3 strains.]Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        A lot of people do not take the flu shot every year because it is not 100 percent apparently.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Saul Degraw
          Ignored
          says:

          I get the flu maybe what, one year in 5?
          The flu shot is mistargeted maybe half the time.

          So I’m taking 10 flu shots over ten years to avoid life not really sucking for two-three weeks.

          That’s a pretty fair trade on the face of it.

          That’s also understating some of the benefits of the flu shot; I.e. other risk reduction, mistargeted isn’t the same as worthless, helping other people not get the flu and so on.Report

        • JS in reply to Saul Degraw
          Ignored
          says:

          It’s amazing how many people think all vaccines offer 100% immunity. In reality, a tiny handful do.

          Most offer mid-90s (about the same effectiveness as the mRNA ones versus the strains they were designed against), and plenty require regular boosters. The original polio one was under 70%, for instance.

          I just, in fact, had to redo my MMR series — something that had to blow the minds of the anti-vaxers telling me the current vaccines “aren’t really vaccines, they had to change the definition” because apparently they all got just one shot of that and were immune to MMR their whole lives. (Instead of 4+ shots, and no they weren’t. Slightly under 90% for the ruebella, I think — and clearly not a lifetime).Report

  6. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    Well, wait a second, is this article saying that natural immunity is better but not vastly better? On the scale of

    vastly worse – worse – same – better – vastly better

    natural immunity is better? That strikes me as newsworthy. I mean, if covid denial is such an intellectual failure, this is the equivalent of saying that the Rothschilds blew up Tower 7 on 9/11, but only a crazy person would claim that they had anything to do with the primary attack. It’s like the pro-vax side is so used to being right it stopped noticing valid statements that are in conflict with them.Report

    • Harriet in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      This has been the case for a while (many cited sources, check out pubmed). The real question is whether “once you’ve gotten the vaccine” you can acquire “normal immunity.” After all, you received an injection against “Original Gangster” COVID19, which has never been seen in America (We got Alpha, which was far weaker and less deadly. Fewer strippers too).Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      Did you miss the part where getting natural immunity means you have to get COVID, and risk serious illness or death?

      I’m with the OP in that we should be treating a confirmed case of COVID as the equivalent of one shot of vaccine, but we should not be letting folks sell a prior infection as a “get out of having any shots” card.Report

      • Pinky in reply to Oscar Gordon
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m not recommending getting coronavirus or skipping the vaccine, but the point of the article is that a prior infection seems to be better than having the shots, right? Not vastly better, but better.Report

        • Harriet in reply to Pinky
          Ignored
          says:

          England was showing that after vaccination, your immune system was no longer responding normally to the virus. So one could reasonably show that “infection then vaccine” was a good thing, but “vaccine then infection” was a complete wash. And the infection-based immunity was better.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Pinky
          Ignored
          says:

          Sure, as long as you keep it in perspective. Being better by a couple of percentage points is interesting, but not really something to write home about, unless you plan to squeeze those numbers for some reason.Report

      • Harriet in reply to Oscar Gordon
        Ignored
        says:

        Did you miss the part where getting vaccine-induced immunity means you risk serious illness or death? 800 deaths on tape, and that’s not counting the dead lady in Chicago who “only collapsed” on tape. She didn’t make it.

        Now, you can contend that “Nobody would ever lie to avoid getting sued…” and “Doctors would never lie to me…”

        But I remember that 50% of American doctors will prescribe placebos. And doctors shilled for tobacco for ages, including “clean asbestos filters”.Report

  7. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    I maintain my stance that when it comes to this kind of stuff Americans are largely irrational with big dosses of knee-jerk contrarianism and oppositional defiant disorder. It does not help that the pro-vaccine message in the United States seemed to bend over backwards to every single potential hesistancy instead telling people to just take the damm vaccine.

    The right-wing and libertarian view point was that the United States was under a lockdown for 2020 when it really wasn’t compared to the rest of the world. At the high point, only 40 percent of Americans worked from home and most of those people were in blue cities. San Francisco-Bay Area was about as COVID serious as a place in the United States could be and the stay at home order still had a bunch of carve outs that would have not flied in Europe, New Zealand, Australia, or many Asian countries. Those included things like law firms and financial services as “essential” businesses. Most of those places were sensible to let people work from home others were not.

    I was in Singapore in December. The country was about as vaccinated as vaccinated can be. People were still required to mask up, you were only allowed to be in groups of no greater than five at restaurants. Plus the country did real contact tracing via an opp or bluetooth token.

    But whatever minor stuff that happened in the United States is still described by many as an unbeardably burdensome lockdown. This strikes me that a lot of Americans lack a sense of prospective.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      San Francisco-Bay Area was about as COVID serious as a place in the United States could be and the stay at home order still had a bunch of carve outs that would have not flied in Europe, New Zealand, Australia, or many Asian countries.

      This is why it’s notable that San Francisco leadership was not following its own mandates.

      And, worse than that, was *DEFENDED* against people pointing out “they’re not following their own mandates!”

      If that’s as serious as we’re going to get, we need to come up with a plan for dealing with Covid in a world where a leadership that does not follow its own mandates is defended for doing so.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        The leader of NZ just cancelled her own wedding because the country is engaging stricter protocols again. At least she got the hint that leaders have to play ball too.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Oscar Gordon
          Ignored
          says:

          I don’t think I agree with what NZ is doing, but if I lived there, I’d feel like we were all in this together and I would not feel like leadership was free riding off of my full participation.

          As it is now, I’m still not going out to eat, getting my groceries delivered more than half the time and masking up when I go into the store, and my socializing is limited to my gaming group every other Saturday night (where everyone else there is also vaccinated). But I don’t mask up when I’m with my vaccinated friends.

          From where I sit, that’s not a defection in our little iterated game.

          But if leadership had rules that said that it was and then they were found to be partying unmasked?

          I’d see that as, at best, fundamentally unserious leadership. At worst, I’d see it as leadership free riding off of me (with a tablespoon of understanding why other people would conclude that the rules weren’t *THAT* important).Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to Oscar Gordon
          Ignored
          says:

          I have been back and forth over Jaybird’s bad-faith trolling on the issue but he is quoting from one source and seemingly not doing any inferring into biases. The whole thing was a non-scandal in San Francisco where people still take COVID seriously but it exists in Jaybiord’s mind as those horrible hypocrite Democrats because Jaybird refuses to just come out and state that he hates Democrats more than anything and we have cooties.

          His comment was an inadvertent proof of the oppositional defiance disorder which prevails in a lot of American political discourse.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
            Ignored
            says:

            Here is CBS covering one of the stories where London Breed was videoed not following her own mandates.

            Now, I think that Saul is misunderstanding my criticism.

            “The whole thing was a non-scandal in San Francisco” is part of my point.

            It’s why I said “we need to come up with a plan for dealing with Covid in a world where a leadership that does not follow its own mandates is defended for doing so.”Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              we need to come up with a plan for dealing with Covid in a world where a leadership that does not follow its own mandates is defended for doing so.

              Why?

              Would you behave differently if we didn’t?

              Would anyone behave differently if we didn’t?Report

              • CW Jeepers in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I presume Jaybird would like us to tell the truth, rather than “lie in order to keep people trusting the science.”

                Enforcing mask mandates instead of using HEPA filters is a good example of “let’s pretend everyone’s an idiot.”

                If we told the truth, that the vaccines don’t work, what do you think would happen?
                Wait… we already asked focus groups that question?
                Some lady decided to punch through a flippin’ wall.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I admit: I am edging ever closer to “this is an endemic problem and it is a matter of when, not if, I get this disease. Given the choices of getting Alpha, Delta, or Omicron, it looks like getting Omicron when one is fully vaccinated and boosted is the best option available.”

                I’m masking up in public, I’m still not going out to eat, I’m limiting my social engagements to ones with people that have also been vaccinated.

                But I resent when leadership free rides on the fact that I am following directions and using my compliance as an opportunity to defect in our iterated game.

                I am guessing that I am smack dab in the middle of attitudes on this. Taking that assumption, I’m assuming that there are people who see the same things that I see and conclude “mask mandates are bullshit, masks don’t work, even leadership doesn’t think so, frig it. I’m going back to normal and seeing if Chili’s has a free table.”

                Do you see that as a misreading of the situation?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes.

                But I understand your position. “I’m resentful and want to lash out in a stupid and self-destructive manner and I’m absolutely sure that everyone else is too” is a pretty common thing.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                What stupid and self-destructive manner am I lashing out in?

                Is it the whole “visiting vaccinated people in their own home” thing?

                I mean, I have gotten more pushback on my saying “I resent when leadership defects even though I am cooperating” than I have seen leadership get for defecting.

                WHICH IS WEIRD.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I mean, I have gotten more pushback on my saying “I resent when leadership defects even though I am cooperating” than I have seen leadership get for defecting.

                WHICH IS WEIRD.

                From whom did you expect that “leadership” to get pushback? Gov. Newsome got recalled for his handling of COVID – which while laughably unsuccessful as a politicla maneuver is still not a null data set.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                From whom did you expect that “leadership” to get pushback?

                The people pushing back against me for criticizing them in one breath while, in the next, criticizing me for being envious of them and wanting to do what they’re doing.

                Well, not go to the CLUB, that’s not how I roll, but like going to Chili’s or something.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Are you changing your pandemic hygiene practices because London Breed didn’t wear a mask?

                Is anybody?

                Because that would be stupid and self destructive.

                If not, then I’m not sure why we “need a plan” .Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m with you on not changing behavior due to hypocritical politicians, but we don’t need a plan?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                A plan to do what?
                Deal with rich people flouting rules the rest of us must comply with?

                Sending them to the countryside for manual labor and re-education?Report

              • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I mean on where we go from here. We’re probably as vaccinated as we’re getting. Those who have taken it are at extremely low risk of hospitalization or worse. When do we start to take this thing more in stride? And I’m not saying the answer needs to be ‘today’ but I don’t think it can be ‘whenever the CDC says so’ either, because I’m pretty confident they’re never going to say so.Report

              • Slade the Leveller in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                This is becoming more and more my position. That said, the quandary is do we want our political leaders ignoring medical advice we’re paying a pretty penny for?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s not that they’re rich that bugs me about it, Chip.

                It’s that they’re the ones who are setting the policies.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Why?
                If there are no changes in public behavior, why does it matter that they are setting policy?

                On the other hand, we have a massive media empire that hypocritically enforces a vaccine requirement for its employees but loudly advocates against it.

                And this has been shown to actually change public behavior!

                Do you think we “need a plan” to deal with Fox News?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “Why is this thing bad? Besides, here’s a different bad thing! CHECK MATE!”Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “If there are no changes in public behavior, why does it matter that they are setting policy?”

                and besides, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, right?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                No, I’m not changing my pandemic practices because she didn’t wear a mask.

                I am considering changing them because of the sheer number of people who don’t think that not wearing a mask indoors is a particularly big deal if sufficient fun is being had, though.

                It’s not a big deal that she wasn’t wearing a mask, don’t you agree?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Lots of people are refusing to wear a mask and this causes you to consider taking off your own mask?

                This to you, is logical?

                I think politicians who say one thing and do another should be criticized, and strongly.

                When their hypocrisy results in no one being harmed, I’m willing to shrug it off.

                When their hypocrisy results in tens of thousands of people dying needlessly, I think they should be summarily tarred and feathered.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                No, Chip. You still misunderstand.

                It’s not the “refusing to wear a mask”.

                It’s the acknowledgment that “not wearing a mask” is becoming something that is seen as “no big deal”.

                I think politicians who say one thing and do another should be criticized, and strongly.

                Really?

                When their hypocrisy results in no one being harmed, I’m willing to shrug it off.

                Chip, it’s not the hypocrisy that is bothering me. You are not understanding my issue.

                I am bothered by the fact that she is defecting in our little iterated game.

                It’s the defection that bugs me.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Given cloth masks aren’t effective, the alternative for me was to wear a stronger mask.

                Similarly I have zero respect for those maskless clear face shields.Report

              • Harriet in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                Why, then, are you not using prophylactics? Are you so confident in the “stronger mask”?

                And, for god’s sakes, use a HEPA filter. It’s very much more effective than masks. (Ten aircycles per hour, say, instead of a “one pass” filter. and 10 aircycles at 99.97% filtration is pretty good).Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Harriet
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s a cost risk reward thing.

                The cost to me is zero, my employer gives out medical masks.

                One good way to evaluate risk/reward is check what the CDC is advising. This is their field and their job.

                There are alternatives to that but you need to avoid answer shopping and quackery.Report

              • Harriet in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                I have read in detail what the CDC advises.
                Few people have.
                Avoiding public restrooms is probably a good idea. Avoiding places with public restrooms is also probably a good idea (do you really trust their hepa filters to have been changed recently?)

                The CDC advises use of HEPA filters (among a whole host of other things).Report

              • Harriet in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Will you start taking ivermectin too?
                I mean, seriously, if everyone else is doing it.
                If the Powers that Be are doing it…
                (and they are not getting vaccinated, and they are not wearing masks — see Obama’s birthday party. It’s not a screwup, it’s everyone).Report

              • Damon in reply to Harriet
                Ignored
                says:

                ivermectin?

                https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

                “Conclusion: In this large PSM study, regular use of ivermectin as a prophylactic agent was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.”

                Maybe that’s not a bad idea.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Damon
                Ignored
                says:

                Nice to FINALLY see what appears to be peer reviewed science on this.

                Three things stand out to me – first this is used as a prophylactic not a treatment. Second, this is a prescribed dose under routine medical monitoring. That’s vastly different then ordering it off Amazon and trying to mix a dose in your kitchen. Third – we still need to be cautious. The Journal is a relatively new open access journal with a really low impact factor – meaning its work is not cited by a lot of other journals, and few really well respected scientists publish in it – yet.

                I hope there is more peer reviewed science to come – we do need a variety of treatment and prophylactic options for this globally.Report

              • JS in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Ah, Brazil! And we’re back to the original conclusion:

                “Ivermectin does nothing for COVID. But it gets rid of internal parasites. And people do better against COVID if they don’t have internal parasites”Report

              • Philip H in reply to JS
                Ignored
                says:

                Like I said – it may work as a prophylactic. May. But one study with high correlation doesn’t a strong case make. I hope we get further peer reviewed science on many of these questions.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                It may work as a prophylactic.

                Where do you apply the paste for that?Report

              • JS in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Once the fraudulent study was resolved, the last meta-study found no real change in outcomes world-wide, but a small positive effect in countries with a problem with internal parasites.

                People want a miracle, ignoring the one you can get for free because “5G chips”Report

              • Philip H in reply to JS
                Ignored
                says:

                That comports with this selection that there’s a possible prophylactic effect BFORE getting COVID. I agree the numbers are not great, and I agree that people seem to have this weird motivated reasoning – as you rightly note – to avoid the thing that works. You and I very much agree on this.

                At the same time, on of my longstanding criticisms is that a lot of this voodoo lacks peer review. Which it does. SO when we see what appears to be solid peer review I think its worth noting positively.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to JS
                Ignored
                says:

                People want a miracle, ignoring the one you can get for free because “5G chips”

                Different populations.

                Pop 1: I don’t want to increase my risks by taking the vaccine (it’s new and scary), and I won’t get covid anyway.

                Pop 2: I already have covid so would really like a cure.

                The root of the anti-vax movement is Humans don’t evaluate risks well. They decide the vac would increase their risk and then look for “facts” to support that.

                This is why we see roughly the same percentage of people opposed in every country.Report

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to Saul Degraw
            Ignored
            says:

            IMHO, the Newsome kerfuffle was a failure of leadership on his part. Did it make a difference to infection rates in the bay area? No. Did it damage public trust? Yeah, to some degree it should. I mean, this goes back to a discussion a few days ago about politicians and not having any shame. If the Newsome things was a nothingburger, that just encourages politicians to push that shame boundary a bit further.

            Either we hold them to a standard, or we can’t complain when they have no standards.Report

            • DensityDuck in reply to Oscar Gordon
              Ignored
              says:

              I think Chip is telling us that the sin of a priest does not invalidate the call to strive for grace, which is entirely in keeping with his religious approach to life.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, I agree, the sins of the Gov doesn’t invalidate the advice to mask up and keep distant.

                That said, I am told that America is rife with income and class inequality, and having elites who behave in a very “Do as I say, not as I do” manner is not helping, and when persons who spend considerable effort telling me how bad the inequalities are then turn around and defend, or dismiss, such behavior from favored elites…Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                I have scorn for an elite who preaches sensible health policy but privately practices unsafe habits.

                Scorn, but only mildly because we can all sympathize with human weakness.

                What I have absolute outrage for, are elites who preach insane unhealthy policy while privately practicing sensible precautions.

                These sorts are directly responsible for tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “I have scorn for an elite who preaches sensible health policy but privately practices unsafe habits.”

                So you’re saying you’d change your behavior just because someone else didn’t follow the rules?Report

            • Saul Degraw in reply to Oscar Gordon
              Ignored
              says:

              If we had Governor Larry Elder, I would agree. But we don’t. The recall was nothing more than the few remaining right-wing Californians having a big butthurt over COVID policies and wishing California was an own the libs state.

              The exit polling after the failed recall basically stated “Vote for Larry Elder? Are you nuts? He is a COVID denying loon.”

              I think Jaybird is basically going on the hunt for reasons to call Democrats hypocrites because he hates us so. And despite what he writes, his sympathies are obviously with the COVID denying/anti-vaxx crowd. Nothing he writes negates the fact that nothing the United States did during COVID came close to a lock down compared to other countries. Singapore was able to open indoor dining earlier because they had an initially harder stance on lockdown which would have caused a meltdown here.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
                Ignored
                says:

                Saul, I got the shot on the 2nd day it was available. I got the 2nd shot the first day it was available. I got boosted within hours of getting the text saying I was eligible. Like, before I went home from work.

                If that’s denial/anti-vax, I have to say that I wish we had more deniers/anti-vaxxers.

                Singapore was able to open indoor dining earlier because they had an initially harder stance on lockdown which would have caused a meltdown here.

                Yeah, we’re so not-Singapore that when someone says “holy crap, the leaders are not following their own mandates”, there are people who jump up and say “YOU JUST HATE DEMOCRATS!” rather than “Yeah, it *IS* bad when leadership doesn’t follow the rules that they set. These rules are important enough that even our leaders should follow them.”

                I do wish that the people who were opposed to Covid getting spread around were willing to take their own side in a fight.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, we’re all mad at elites who preach one thing and do another.

                Care to list them by name?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not sure that we are mad at them, Chip.

                We seem to be more mad at the people saying “they shouldn’t do that” and questioning why people would focus on “mistakes”.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I know right?

                When I point out that the Republican Party and Fox News are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, you wouldn’t believe who springs up to defend them.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                The deaths before the vaccine need to be blamed on different things than the deaths after the vaccine.

                Granted, there were a *LOT* of things that we didn’t know in the early days of the ‘vid. Remember spraying down our groceries? Crazy. I wore a cloth mask as I drove around in the car. Absolutely nuts.

                But then there were peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks… and they found that some masks worked and other masks didn’t work and there were even some masks that were worse than not masking at all.

                People who argued that you should “mask up!” without explaining that some masks needed to be avoided are responsible for people getting sick and dying.

                After the vaccines came out, there were two main kinds of vaccines, the traditional ones (J&J, AZ) and the mRNA ones (Pfizer, Moderna). There was a point where some of the vaccines were halted when there was still a shortage of them because these vaccines appeared to cause blood clots in women. Instead of saying “well, we’ll still give them to men”, they were halted entirely.

                This killed people.

                The FDA’s recalcitrance killed people.
                Not necessarily for vaccines (which, arguably, they fast-tracked) but they blocked the use of fitbits and apple watches as O2 monitors and even now are throwing speed bumps in the way of fast testing kits.

                The CDC’s poor guidance killed people. It was a year before the acknowledged that it was transmitted through the air more than via surfaces.

                It’s good that we have vaccines and I hope we get more people vaccinated… but the vaccines are no longer a silver bullet (if they ever were).

                And there are a lot more deaths than can be blamed on merely a lack of getting the shot.

                Personally, I think we need to be doing more when it comes to social distancing and masking. Best defense? No be there.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                there are a lot more deaths than can be blamed on merely a lack of getting the shot.

                Yes, which is why I said “The Republican Party and Fox News are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.”

                Unlike London Breed, whose death count is zero.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Do the people who argue against peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of masks have a body count?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Don’t beat yourself up about that. It was last year.

                Here, repeat after me:
                “The Republican Party and Fox News are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ll do one better.

                Both the Federal Government and Cable News are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Nice try at BSDI but no.

                “The Republican Party and Fox News are directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.”

                *Jaybird flies sideways in front of the bullet*Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, the fact that the Republican Party and Fox News are directly responsible for the deaths of dozens of tens of thousands of Americans should not be used as a way to excuse the Democratic Party and other news networks’ similar responsibility for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.

                I agree that the Republican Party and Fox News have (and are!) killing people, yes.

                Would that they were the only ones doing so.

                This would be a problem that could be solved by merely electing someone like Biden and giving him the House and Senate.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                At worse they’ve been responsible for moving the needle a handful of percentage points… but the needle was already set for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

                So call it thousands, not hundreds of thousands. The 50 states and other countries have showcased the limits of gov power and collective action.

                (Some) People believe what they want to believe. They don’t want to believe in vaccines or the virus.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Dark Matter
                Ignored
                says:

                No that’s factually false.

                Had the Republican Party and Fox News collectively embraced vaccine mandates and masks, the death toll would certainly be hundreds of thousands fewer.

                Since the vaccine, almost all deaths have been among the unvaccinated. The vast majority of them refused these simple health protocols as a direct result of the massive propaganda blitz of America’s top rated cable news outfit, and the Republican in power.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Had the Republican Party and Fox News collectively embraced vaccine mandates and masks, the death toll would certainly be hundreds of thousands fewer.

                This is a huge leap unless “the GOP” really means “all of the anti-vaxers”.

                If that’s what you mean then it’s true, the problem is most of the First world has about the same percentage of anti-vaxers.

                My daughter in Europe tells me they’ve created their own political party where she’s at.

                Ten to twenty percent of the population is enough to swing elections and (in other countries) create political parties.

                Collective Action problems are really fishing hard for a democracy.Report

              • JS in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                It always surprised me that Trump didn’t jump on MAGA masks and make bank off them.

                I guess he couldn’t, after so long denying it and even longer pretending it was a blue state problem.

                And even now, as heavily-GOP demographics face the bulk of the deaths, the GOP still can’t change course.

                They’re killing their own voters because their voters won’t support any measures to keep them alive.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to JS
                Ignored
                says:

                The MyPillow guy manufactured masks. They made a big deal out of it for a couple of days.

                I agree. I thought it was was weird too.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                so

                as is usual with liberals

                someone has accused you of doing a thing

                and you are loudly, angrily doing exactly that thingReport

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Jaybird,

                Suppose I lived in Washington or Michigan where as far as I can tell the governors do not have any stories like Breed or Newsome which have you in a tither.

                Suppose I made the same point but substituted “San Francisco-Bay Area” with Washington and/or Seattle Metro area.

                What would your reaction be on my accusation that Americans are being irrational temper tantrum throwers when it came to our light restrictions/stay at home orders compared to the rest of the world?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
                Ignored
                says:

                What would your reaction be on my accusation that Americans are being irrational temper tantrum throwers when it came to our light restrictions/stay at home orders compared to the rest of the world?

                “You’re absolutely right. I absolutely agree with you. Why, here’s an example of how some people respond to criticism of San Francisco’s mayor flouting her own mandate.”Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “Covid must be a fake. The only other explanation is that a politician is foolish and entitled.”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                “I’m vaccinated and boosted and your vaccination status is no longer my responsibility.”Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Health care workers should get a real job.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ve heard that The Mayo Clinic is accepting applications.Report

            • Mike Schilling in reply to Oscar Gordon
              Ignored
              says:

              While telling people to be safe, Newsome acts unsafely. That’s hypocritical.

              While being fully vaccinated, Carlson tells people vaccines don’t work. That’s murderous.

              Yet we spend far more time taking about the first.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                Exactly.

                Politicians acting hypocritically is nothing. Politicians acting in ways that are running a risk of being unsafe, and the government has condemned those things, are bad.

                Newsome essentially was caught driving drunk with other people from the government. This is incredibly hypocritical, especially for someone getting up in front of the public and urging them to not drive drunk to curb the current drunk driving epidemic.

                It should rightfully draw condemnation, and maybe even result in him losing office.

                And it is _nothing_ compared to Carlson getting on TV and demanding people drive drunk while he safely takes the subway each night, secure in the fact that the drunk drivers probably won’t kill him. (They occasionally jump the sidewalk and take someone out, so he could get hit on the way to the subway, but what are the odds of that?)

                This is nothing at all compared to the political party who demands the right to drive drunk. While almost their leadership is driving around in heavily armored cars that can shove people off the road and don’t care there are drunks pinballing down the highway.

                Newsome is just a normal political hypocrite who has done something that puts people a very slight risk after demanding that others refrain from doing. The Republican party and leadership are something else altogether.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Mike Schilling
                Ignored
                says:

                Agree, but there is no law against Carlson exercising his 1A rights, as vile as he is.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ll just leave this right here, since pointing it out means I’m tossing venom into the public sphere and contributing to the demise of society:

                A Manhattan restaurant where Sarah Palin was spotted dining indoors while unvaccinated over the weekend confirmed that the former Alaska governor returned to dine outdoors on Wednesday, just a few days after testing positive tor Covid.

                At issue are current local guidelines that advise people who tested positive to remain in isolation for five days after their positive test.

                Palin, who is in Manhattan for her defamation trial against the New York Times, tested positive for Covid-19, a federal judge presiding over her case said Monday, delaying the start of the trial. It’s unclear what day Palin first tested positive.
                “She is, of course, unvaccinated,” said US District Judge Jed Rakoff Monday, according to Reuters.

                https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/27/business-food/sarah-palin-covid-restaurant/index.htmlReport

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Nope, you are not, and Palin should be ridiculed for this.

                But TTBOMK, she is no longer a public official, and barely a political leader, so she falls under the same category as Carlson – a$$hole private citizen.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Oscar Gordon
          Ignored
          says:

          Whoa, wait a second, you’re telling me the Prime Minister of New Zealand is still single?Report

  8. Rufus F.
    Ignored
    says:

    Since I’m currently visiting my mother in Virginia from Ontario, I’m going to write a post entitled “No, Virginia, this isn’t cold weather.”Report

  9. Rufus F.
    Ignored
    says:

    The point about long term effects is an important one and I think it’s one that we still don’t fully understand. I had covid before you could get any vaccines. And it was rough, but I got over it.

    However, my heart has been wonky ever since. I kept going in and telling different doctors that it’s “wonky” by which I mean it sometimes misses beats and then races to catch up and often I get out of breath and dizzy. I told my boss this too. Everyone has been telling me it’s probably heartburn or a torn muscle and I kept saying No, I’m familiar with those things. It ain’t that. It’s wonky.

    Anyway, after looking at a bunch of tests and things, they’ve determined it’s an incomplete right bundle branch block, most likely caused by, yep- myocarditis. Like I said: wonky. And likely related to having covid.

    Now, I have half my elderly relatives asking me if it started once I got the vaccines. No. It was wonky as soon as I got over Covid. The vaccines were a picnic by comparison.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Rufus F.
      Ignored
      says:

      Long-Covid is a thing, as are a whole host of post-infection problems. Like you, many of those problems occurred in individuals who were not vaccinated. One of the things that’s really worrying form a public health perspective is whether, and to what degree, those long term side effects will present after Omicron.Report

      • Rufus F. in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Right! I’ve told people who were hesitant that, in my experience, having Covid was a lot harder than the effects of being vaccinated. Of course, I got it before vaccinations were even an option. So, maybe it’s worse if the vaccine is your first experience. But I REALLY don’t think so.

        And I have to say it’s concerning not just on a personal level how hard it was to convince folks that, no, I really do feel differently after. I have a co-worker who got it a year later and it’s the same for her. The main thing is, when exhaustion hits, I can’t just slow down. I have to stop and sit down before I fall over. It’s not good, and I worry the long-term outcome is going to be a pacemaker.Report

    • Harriet in reply to Rufus F.
      Ignored
      says:

      Myocarditis caused by the vaccine is a thing, too. Lots of deaths (have you seen the football stats?), many retirements.
      It’s less of a problem if you’re overweight, of course.

      Suggest you stay away from physical activity, lest you die from shoveling snow.Report

  10. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    The Republican Party,, continuing its spiral into anti-vax nuttery:

    Newly proposed SC law would make it a crime to ask about vaccine status

    GREENVILLE, SC (FOX Carolina) – A newly proposed law in the South Carolina Statehouse would make it a criminal offense for your employer – or anyone – to ask about your vaccination status.

    Under the new proposed law, even just asking if someone is vaccinated could be considered a misdemeanor crime. It’s something those who are for it are calling a “don’t ask” bill.

    “The government has no place in making you or telling you to take the vaccination, or threatening your livelihood if you don’t,” said Upstate representative William “Bill“ Chumley (R, District 35), one of the co-sponsors of the bill.

    https://www.foxcarolina.com/coronavirus/newly-proposed-sc-law-would-make-it-a-crime-to-ask-about-vaccine-status/article_8855a606-7daf-11ec-b3ca-4b10a28190d5.htmlReport

    • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      How is the law polling in the state?Report

    • Slade the Leveller in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      I don’t see how this would survive a 1A challenge.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Slade the Leveller
        Ignored
        says:

        I imagine that the point is similar to Biden’s OSHA mandate for vaccines.

        The point isn’t to make it survive a court-challenge.
        The point is the stuff that’ll happen between now and when it doesn’t survive the court challenge.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Slade the Leveller
        Ignored
        says:

        Odds are it will get Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito. Gorsuch and Barret are possible.

        Remember, the idea is not to govern, but to punish.Report

        • KenB in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          Jeebus, it hasn’t even gone to committee yet, much less passed — aren’t you maybe getting a little ahead of yourself?Report

          • Pinky in reply to KenB
            Ignored
            says:

            Liberals will game something like this out then spend the rest of the day angry at what Thomas et al did. It’s like the old routine about a woman angry at her husband for something that happened in a dream.

            Also, to be in the progressive mentality, you have to assume you can see the future. Any more humble approach tends toward conservatism.Report

            • KenB in reply to Pinky
              Ignored
              says:

              To me this sort of thing just seems like human nature and common enough among partisans in any group, but I guess it depends on exactly how you’re defining “conservative”.Report

              • Pinky in reply to KenB
                Ignored
                says:

                There are a lot of things that can be explained by the following: conservatives claim to speak on behalf of the past, liberals claim to speak on behalf of the future. It’s not 100%, and I have to toss in all the obligatory caveats about the varying meanings of both terms. But it holds up surprisingly often.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to KenB
            Ignored
            says:

            Do you think I’m unfairly nutpicking?

            Or is this proposed law something that would fairly represent the thinking of the Republican Party voting base?Report

            • KenB in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Well I certainly don’t have my finger on the pulse of the GOP overall, but: I suspect the emotional content of it would be appealing to the typical Fox viewer, but I think that the majority of them would understand that it goes too far; I don’t think it will become law in its current form and there’s no way that any Supreme Court justices would defend it — they’re the GOP elite, not the populist rabble.

              If it just said that employers couldn’t ask you about vaccination status, I assume that would sail through a GOP-dominated state, and I don’t know enough to say how that would fare in a court challenge.Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      It’s already a HIPPO violation.Report

  11. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    The second most popular Republican in America, ladies and gentlemen:

    DeSantis Touts Covid Treatments After FDA Says They Don’t Work
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-shuts-monoclonal-antibody-treatment-sites-fda-sets-new-limits

    Alternative headline:
    Governor Who Is Vaccinated Urges Everyone Else To Take Quack MedicineReport

  12. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    More Republican madness:
    Kansas Bill Forces Pharmacists To Fill Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine As Off-Label Covid Treatment

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/26/kansas-politicians-off-label-ivermectin-hydroxychloroquine-covid/9223715002/?scrolla=5eb6d68b7fedc32c19ef33b4

    The party of small government strikes a blow for freedom.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *