20 deaths in March/2021 to 6 in April/2021. When you go to see the stats since April/2020, you'll notice that there were full months with 0 or 1 death. [0]
Too soon, too small sample to draw such conclusions.
The end of winter probably has a lot to do with it also (just like flu deaths go down during the spring and summer). The vaccines effectiveness probably won’t show through very visibly until November.
Seasonality isn't really understood at all by epidemiologists, so it's probably best to confine discussion of it to the places where it's clearly visible, which is mostly the northern hemisphere indeed.
While I strongly believe in vaccines, I note that the Dallas, Texas (USA) area has seen similar improvements, and we’re hardly a high-vaccination area. Vaccines surely help, but there seems to be an additional force beyond 1. vaccination rates and 2. natural immunity that could be inferred based on data-informed infection rates. Almost every pandemic measure has been eliminated in Texas the past two months, and the fatality, positivity, and hospitalization rates have kept going down. (The state has prevented local jurisdictions from extending measures.)
My guess is that asymptomatic infection rates may have been far higher than what the professionals believe or herd immunity happens at considerably lower levels than believed. I don’t know how else to explain this.
For backup, here’s various plots I’m making from official state data. The hospitalizations are probably the most reliable metric, and like the other metrics, they are just falling off a cliff. https://www.arencambre.com/covid-19-stats-for-dallas-and-tex...
> While I strongly believe in vaccines, I note that the Dallas, Texas (USA) area has seen similar improvements, and we’re hardly a high-vaccination area.
With 45%+ of adults with at least one dose and 35%+ fully vaccinated,
its not bad either (and most of TX, by population, seems to be innthe same neighborhood.) Given that almost everyplace has (through a combination of formal policy and swlf-selection) tended to prioritize people either at risk by age or health condition or in and occupation posing a high spread risk, and catching asymptomatic vases is pretty hit or miss because surveillance never got that good, you’d expect a lot of the gains in deaths and reported cases to be in that first third of adult vaccinations.
The Brazil study was done with a less effective vaccine than the ones distributed in Dallas. 75% of that might not be far from about half with an mRNA vaccine.
Look at the plots in my link above. The rates have been low or falling off a cliff for a long time. Again, not doubting efficacy of vaccines. I’m proud to be fully vaccinated. But there’s something else at play.
There's also a new issue which will make determining vaccine effectiveness in the USA very difficult. The CDC has changed how COVID cases are defined, but only for people who are vaccinated. Specifically, reports of 'vaccine breakthrough' i.e. someone who tests positive after being vaccinated, are now only being processed if they:
* Are positive with a CT < 25
and
* Result in hospitalization or death
People who aren't vaccinated on the other hand are counted as being "sick" with COVID if they test positive with a CT < ~40+ (exact values vary by lab) and don't need to be hospitalized or have any symptoms at all. PCR cycle thresholds are exponents. Each cycle doubles the quantity of what you're looking for. Thus a positive at a CT of 40 is drastically different to a positive at a CT of 25. You could inject people with water and using this standard, you would see an enormous effect. Clearly this sort of thing is not sound science and will result in time series that show the CDC what it very much wants to see, rather than what's actually happening.
This type of distortion keeps happening with COVID related research, and it's resulted in me no longer trusting it (see [1] for more examples of what I've seen). Not a single figure or data point about this disease can be taken for granted because so often when the details are investigated, there turns out to be some ridiculous catch or unscientific practice being deployed. It's also not just random incompetence because it always seems to be working towards the same end: making COVID seem more dangerous and getting more people to take vaccines.
"As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance."
How do you know you know Dallas is not a high vaccination area? We only have data at the state level. It may be that the urban areas have high vaccination rates while the rural areas have vaccination rates.
The big improvements are for sure a combination vaccination, natural immunity and people who are still using masks and social distancing.
No. I’m saying our vaccination rate is far from herd-immunity levels and low enough that experts have pushed back the projected herd immunity date considerably.
The other things are two large infection surges. Perhaps prevalence and/or power of natural immunity are higher than thought?
I challenge your hazy memory with a "false." Late spring was when we started seeing infections. Summer being hot was what we were told would help. The data showed otherwise. As you've provided none of your own, I'll go ahead and do the same.
There's a few states where the drop in the summer was really obvious, like Illinois and New York, and others that didn't spike until the fall, like Washington and Montana. Cases being low in the summer is common in the northern states, which is probably what GP is hazily remembering.
It spreads in the summer. Look at my plots (link above) for Texas’s summer surge. Was happening when I was a Boy Scout summer camp. Kind of weird to be in that communal environment at that time (albeit outdoors mainly, where spread is unusual).
There is actually more interesting things going on here then the title suggests.
They split this small city into 4 and offered each section vaccines at a different time to get a better real-world test of the exact herd immunity point.
We know it works only because there are scientific studies confirming it. If we stop doing the studies just because the results are "obvious" by now, we won't know if/when something changes and our assumptions don't hold anymore. Not every new study has to be a surprise. Ones that confirm the status quo are equally valuable.
The anti-vaccine movement is not going to stop because these people are not persuaded by facts or arguments. Yes, we know epidemiology works. No, this proves nothing to people who do not listen.
I think that's a little unfair. I've encountered people who are nervous about the vaccine, largely because its a black box they don't understand. They changed their mind once pointed at an appropriate level resource (e.g. something more ELI5 than a scientific paper, but not an actual eli5 explanation that glosses over all the important bits and leaves more questions than answers). Although perhaps hestient and antivax are separate groups.
In any argument, its always convinent to assume your opponent is just unreasonable. That makes your failure to convince their fault not yours. Maybe some people are, but its a dangerous slippery slope to operate under that assumption.
Yes. My mom was hesitant about receiving the vaccine but she still got it and thankfully encountered no side effects. Some of what she said before getting it resembled the same anti-vaxx points I saw online, but that doesn't mean she fully bought into it.
Politics is a spectrum and even people who are fully "right-wing" or whatever are still to the left of someone. It doesn't do anyone any favors to pretend that there can only be two opposing sides.
The "black box" statement is interesting, because aren't all medications a "black box" to the vast majority of people? When you go to your doctor and are prescribed medication, you generally take it without asking questions. What I don't understand about anti vaxers is why vaccines are any different?
> anti-vaccine movement is not going to stop because these people are not persuaded by facts or arguments
That’s fine. Nobody should be forced to have something injected into them.
But society doesn’t have to wait for them. Decisions have consequences, and a lot of public goods are a privilege, not a right. You have a right to refuse to get photo ID; it does not follow you have a right to fly.
If you choose not to get vaccinated, the public shouldn’t be responsible for your care costs, if you get sick or debilitated. You should also responsible for the costs of those you injure. Like Arizona’s stupid motorist law for people who ignore flood signs.
If you choose to do something else dangerous like rock climbing or smoking or unprotected sex should the public also not be responsible for your care costs? Or do you have some logical explanation for why vaccines are unique?
In the US you can still board domestic flights without ID, although the TSA will delay you for extra screening.
I am not an anti-vaxxer, but bodily autonomy is important and we mustn't coerce people into medical treatments.
> If you choose to do something else dangerous like rock climbing or smoking or unprotected sex should the public also not be responsible for your care costs?
Personally, yes. Until we reach the point that e.g. rock climbing is available to everyone in the population, it's unfair to ask those who cannot afford it to subsidize those who can but put the costs of their adventures on the public. (That's why I think unprotected sex and smoking are public concerns. They're accessible to nearly everyone.)
> In the US you can still board domestic flights without ID, although the TSA will delay you for extra screening.
The analogy to this would be requiring negative Covid tests. I, and most people, I think, would be fine with someone refusing vaccination if they can consistently show recent negative tests.
I believe in efforts like the eradication of Polio.
Yes, for some things I believe it's ethical. If EVERYONE, excluding specifically known to be at risk individuals (already medically compromised in other ways), is forced to receive a specific inoculation as part of an effort to eradicate the disease and make everyone better off as a result, that is fair and should happen.
It's dishonest to conflate people who are hesitant about covid vaccines with anti-vaxxers. No amount of "listening" will change the fact that all three vaccines are untested (it will take time for manifestation and detection of possible long term side effects), and the two primary vaccines are novel technologies.
The truth of the matter is that covid vaccination has its risks and they need to be weighed against those of the virus. And when you make an honest effort to perform such an evaluation, the choice is not quite so clear cut.
> No amount of "listening" will change the fact that all three vaccines are untested
They've had significant testing, similar to other medications of a similar type.
Do you have an actual threshold you think would be a reasonable amount of "testing" and a reasonable argument as to why that is an appropriate amount as oposed to just picked at random? Or is this the sort of thing where someone could run a 100 year study, and you would still object, because what-if i live to a ripe ole' 150 and the long term effects only start 110 years later?
Not parent, but I think it's pretty clear (at least) mRNA vaccines have not had "[testing] similar to other medications of a similar type," because they are quite novel and the first of their kind that has been approved for widespread use. (Aka they had testing, but not as strong historical real-world testing as others)
As for the other available vaccines, I'm not as familiar, but they seem more tested (although less efficient afaik). Although they also have their risks, especially for younger people, which one may want to factor in their risk/cost analysis.
> Do you have an actual threshold you think would be a reasonable amount of "testing" and a reasonable argument as to why that is an appropriate amount as oposed to just picked at random?
Personally, because the risks of the virus are so low, I'm likely going to wait until the long term safety studies are complete: Oct 2022 and Apr 2023 for Pfizer and Moderna (I forget which is which), and early 2023 for both AstraZeneca and J&J.
And if it turns out I did get the virus already, any vaccine has risk for no reward. Naturally gained immunity seems to be as good or better than vaccine immunity.
Fwiw, i think people downvoting you is unfair. I may disagree with your risk assesment, but i asked the question and you gave your answer, so it seems unfair for people to downvote you when you appear to have answered in good faith.
> The truth of the matter is that covid vaccination has its risks and they need to be weighed against those of the virus. And when you make an honest effort to perform such an evaluation, the choice is not quite so clear cut.
What risks from vaccination make it not clear cut?
Yeah, vaccine denial is a spectrum and not all of the concerns are easily dismissed nonsense, even if the far end of it is.
My experience in talking to vaccine-hesitant people is that the most important thing is honesty, including honesty about what we don't know, what various authorities (e.g. the WHO) got wrong, the actual magnitude of both the risks (e.g. comparing long Covid to VAERS data), the science backing/not backing various regulations (6 ft is a guess based on the inverse square law and honestly kinda suspect, etc.), and discussion over how the risks are not evenly distributed in all populations.
There's plenty of room in there for questioning things and I say that as someone who got fully vaccinated as soon as possible. Lately I've been spending some of my time trying to help various vaccine-hesitant online populations better understand the actual science on the subject and what we do/don't know.
I find that some of the most prominent misconceptions are things like assuming that the vaccinations are 100% effective (Sinovac is what, maybe 60%?) or that mRNA vaccines are "gene therapy" (only in the sense that all viruses are, and at least the vaccine goes away in ~3 days instead of replicating inside you).
Better resources that explain what we do and don't know focused on those points specifically and accessible to a lay audience would probably help the most people, preferably linking to scientific papers and primary sources to let the more scientifically minded dig in.
After all, many people are not going to believe you if you tell them the vaccines are 100% safe. But they might believe you if you're honest that there are 1 in a million risks that are better on average than taking the same risk with a Covid infection and that the damn virus is likely to exist at least within outbreaks if not in community spread for several more years and talk about how the profile for long Covid vs. long-term vaccine side-effects is similar, but you get a smaller exposure from the vaccine because it breaks down and goes away. And if somehow it doesn't, someone posted the sequences on Github so it could be tested for specifically if that ever became necessary.
Your approach seems pretty reasonable. Personally I think the scientific part of the debate is a bit of a red herring. People do things and take medicines all the time that they dont fully understand the risks and consequences of. I think a lot of the wariness comes from the obvious doctrinal viewpoint of a lot of vocal advocates of covid measures - making it an ultimatum where you're either fully on board or a "denier", anti-masker, whatever is not a way to win people over.
It's an interesting problem, because in one respect you don't to encourage apathy or laziness, but on the other hand, people are rightly wary of any kind of zealotry or promotion - in most cases I see heavy advertising as an obvious red flag that something isn't what it seems.
So like you say, having an honest discussion seems like the best approach (and respecting people's choices once you've given them the information). But that's probably true of most controversial things.
Yeah, it's funny, if you read How to Win Friends and Influence People and look only at the techniques mentioned directly without understanding them, you'd end up effectively becoming an old-timey salesman stereotype.
If you look at the techniques being used on you, the reader of that book, and try to understand the principles, it's a much different book.
Those techniques are constantly getting overused and burning out, they're just not a stable foundation to build something like public health communication on.
It's better to do our best to be honest and present all the things we know and don't know and explain when and how new data enters the picture and changes our conclusions. But you have to be aware of that within your own reasoning process first to be able to explain it to someone else, so it's not that easy to communicate.
Except that large swaths of the population have reading comprehension of 9th graders.
Someone sent me an article about the issues surrounding AZ vax, which concluded that it was safe. However, my friend interpreted all the concerns in terms of 'fear' - literally taking the results upside down. She didn't understand the article, just 'fear'.
Which is why by and large 'transparency' is important, but also as important is to keep less material negative artifacts muted in terms of dissemination. Yes, the major news outlets do a side piece, and officials do their little press interviews and publish data, but it doesn't go to prime time.
Literally the best thing to 'convince' people is to show others getting it.
I'm still dismayed that Trump or Biden didn't ask the Avengers team to do more pro-vax stuff.
Little vignettes with Captain America and Iron Man getting vaxxed would have been great.
And then follow up with the real actors getting vaxxed.
I'm surprised not to see more coordinated campaigns of celebrities, authors, singers, athletes especially NASCAR drivers and country singers do little public notices. If Lebron and Jordan want to help their community they could spend a few months going town to town, going to visit vax clinics, talking to staff, raising awareness, dropping into the local radio station/barber shops, schools. That would really help move the needle. Pun intended.
Facts, or anything that requires cognitive interpretation is out of range for 1/2 the population, and may not get across to most of the rest through noisy media channels. I don't watch the news because I find it terrible, but it causes me to miss some key things.
Very simple concepts, examples, images, emotion and especially 'social evidence' by those with 'social influence' (i.e. athletes, actors) is how the masses are moved. 'Keep Calm, Carry On' in red, with the Crown ... is one of the simplest, smartest public communications issuances ever.
Edit:
"Better resources that explain what we do and don't know focused on those points specifically and accessible to a lay audience would probably help the most people, preferably linking to scientific papers and primary sources to let the more scientifically minded dig in."
This is a little upside down and implies kind of a misconception of public communications.
It's very, very difficult to get simple, even essential messages across to large populations. Nuanced information is almost impossible.
We can barely get the message of vaccine availability out.
So we definitely want to have 'the latest information' about vaccines available on gov. web sites, and probably places like reddit threads etc. - but the people on the more literate end of the spectrum are already convinced. Those on the lower end of the spectrum are the problem - and they're not even going to be able to read 'scientific reviews' let alone even know what one is, let alone come across the literature in the first place, let alone have any interest whatsoever in reading it.
I would urge you to go to Los Angeles and get on the bus. Just look around. Listen to what people are saying, what they are paying attention to, their vocabulary, the music they are listening to, their behaviour and interactions. Strike up a conversation. Many are elderly, many are isolated, many are migrants with weaker language skills and live in more isolated communities often not exposed to proper information. The 'lowest common denominator' is quite low and those are the people that are the most skeptical. 'The Rock', 'Oprah' and 'Kenney Chesney' would do 100x more to improve awareness than any pamphlet referencing scientific research.
The first sentence was terrible. The rest of it was reasonable but the thing is people don't like being manipulated.
They may not always know the precise terms of the manipulation but public health is not somewhere I like to see a lot of manipulation.
Now, they're not wrong that people take things out of context, that's why I generally approach things by adding context. Yes, there are one in a million risks with vaccines, give or take a bit, but there are much higher covid risks.
That's why I don't try to manufacture consent, I try to give people the most honest, brutal factual assessment I can and let them assess the facts honestly. I will poke holes in their theories and push them on the points that are just plain false, but I won't try to BS them with false confidence or try to manipulate them with social proof.
Techniques like that may work for a time but they don't last. It's better to build on a foundation of honesty.
While reasonable, your statement ignore the fact that humans have issues considering the difference between a 1 in the million risk and 1 in 100000 (made up numbers). Many are afraid of flying and drive instead even if the risks are way higher driving.
It is funny you mentioned driving because if you are in the 18-29 year age group you have a much larger risk of dying from driving (or other people driving?) than you do from COVID.
Deaths in the 18-29 age group in the US: 2253. I believe this figure is over a longer period than 12 months. So this is going to overestimate covid risk when comparing to 12 months of driving fatalities: Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
> Yes, but you don't 'pass along' 'car accient death' to others.
Actually you might, if you were the dangerous driver, just not to very many others and it can't spread further than that.
And yes, that's a very good point about the risk for kids that's not often appreciated. That's one of the points I try to make people understand, along with the idea that vaccines aren't perfect (so you can't just immediately drop every precaution once vaxxed), etc.
The first sentence is accurate; you say you want 'honesty' but are unable to deal with very simple factual information yourself, because it's unpalatable?
Otherwise, you are misunderstanding the nature of Public Communications.
The idea that somehow sidelining some confusing information, to focus on simple messaging is somehow 'dishonest' is wrong and naive. It would cause massive harm.
FYI - the strongest example of this is with masks. It's why they told you 'Mask were not necessary' at first (because 300M buying masks in a panic would negate the ability of doctors to get masks), but then, as supplies became available, and the marginal value of masks would make sense for the general public - the CDC turned upside down and told you masks were essential.
That's Dr. Fauci doing his job.
You have 350 Million people to get vaccinated and you have to communicate to them the availability and safety of vaccinations.
About 1/2 of the population has some degree of literacy and education, they watch the news, they roughly believe the government. They watch Dr. Fauci somewhat consistently and roughly understand what he is saying. They are compliant on some level.
But the other 1/2 are not.
Millions don't have the capacity to parse through the information, either in terms of intellectual foundation, vocabulary, etc..
Millions don't watch any news.
Millions don't believe anything the government says.
Millions believe in some other conspiracy theory.
Millions are lazy and don't care.
Millions are in social or work environments that reinforce all of this.
Millions - even among the literate camp are unnecessarily skeptical about vaccines.
...
We're in the middle of a pandemic mass killing elderly, we finally have a vaccine, it's on the news every single night, on every station in, in Canada - and yet only 1/2 (!!!) of eligible seniors are showing up to get vaccine in Toronto? It's similar elsewhere. That's really bad.
I have friends who don't really understand what is being said about the risks of AZ vaccine, others making irrational claims and 'waiting out' for their preferred vaccine which is literally 100% against the often repeated policy of the government and scientific consensus.
Dr. Bonnie Henry of BC goes on TV every 2 days and gives an amazingly detailed presentation about COVID updates. I usually watch it. Epidemioligal graphs etc.. You know how many viewers there are? About 10 0000. 10K viewers among 6 million target citizens. Now that particular form of messaging isn't going to be remotely sufficient in getting the word out is it?
...
So how do you communicate important information with people that are too dumb, incapable, unwilling, irrationally skeptical, not paying attention, because it's their lives depend on it?
Popular individuals with social credibility move masses - not scientists or even 'facts'. Obviously, messaging needs to be truthful and credible, but in a simplified format.
You market the idea using communications that will get the message across, by people that have credibility within groups, and who can draw enough attention.
Oprah is beloved and respected among huge numbers of people, particularly African American women who are considerably more likely to be vaxx skeptical than other groups - and who are also way more likely to die from COVID.
It's similar with politics - do you remember her endorsement of Obama: 'He Is The One' ?
Not only that, Oprah and her communications team are Master Communicators. She knows exactly how to say something the right way, to get a message across.
Otherwise, entertainers and athletes are who people pay attention to and look up to.
You want to get people down to the vax centre: get Michael Jordan there.
In some places they are having lotteries - get vaxxed - win a million dollars. That's brilliant.
If children were a target of COVID and neededed to get vaxxed then if I were president I would practically 'executive order' Marvel and DC comics hers to make little vax vignettes with Superman getting vaccinated: 'Even Superman Needs His Vaccine, Did You Get Yours? Ask Your Parents'.
If the government were more effective in communicating, they'd be addressing the 'bottom 50%' using better methods.
To think that we use more effective strategies to sell breakfast cereal and iPhones ... than we do critical, life-saving vaccines is kind of pathetic.
I never said it was inaccurate, I said it was terrible. You can't look down your nose at people--even accurately--and expect them to trust you with their health decisions.
I explained it in a comment up thread, but the techniques to push things on people via social proof and whatnot smack of manipulation and people are rightfully suspect of that. Right now, half the anti-vaxxers or otherwise hesitant spend their time pointing out all the people encouraging them to vaxx as they're suspect of their motives.
You can certainly get some of the people some of the time, but I don't think this is a stable foundation. It doesn't help that accuracy hasn't always been the first goal. I don't think you can fully hide or sideline the confusion and when it comes out, it just create mistrust.
So you're right that this is about trust, but... manipulation doesn't lead to long term trust. If you read How to Win Friends and Influence People nowadays, you can see the stereotype of a smarmy old-timey salesman in it. A lot of the techniques there are burnt out and the very first chapter is basically a long-winded attempt to use social proof on you the reader that this book is awesome.
Now it is a very insightful book, I won't say otherwise, but you can also see that some of this stuff doesn't hold up over time, especially when it's getting misused.
1) Communicating in terms that people understand is not manipulative.
Developing Social Consensus through Medical Propaganda, you could argue is manipulative, yes, but it's an inherent artifact of fighting off an existential threat to the wellbeing of the community.
You must herd most of the cats into the pen to get vaccinated or they will die.
2) Get away from the idea that there's something wrong or immoral with identifying that some people are smarter than others, more conscientious, lazier, inept, disagreeable.
In a crisis (and otherwise) we need to deal with actual reality.
3) You need to communicate with people at their level.
There are plenty of people smarter than you and I who might want to be communicated with in different terms than you and I might expect - the same goes for less literate.
Children obviously are not developed, and talking about facts is pointless. So you get Superman to tell them.
Oprah has more credibility to 1/2 the population that the media. So you get her to say it in the way she thinks will work best.
...
The Scientific Literature is public information, it's openly available, and frankly, the national health advisers are on TV 10x more than they even need to be, they've 'over explained' everything so 'transparency' for the most part has never been a problem.
It's not like we're telling people giant wartime lies to keep them onside.
If you gave yourself the job of getting everyone vaxxed, and then you realize that 1/2 of people were not showing up, you'd quickly start to alter your plan and arrive at much the same conclusions.
We've been doing this since the dawn of time, often in much worse ways, this is Public Communications.
As to point (1) that isn't the part I identified as manipulative.
And Covid isn't an existential threat. It's terrible, mind you, but killing 2% of the population is only enough to cause widespread misery, not to wipe out the human race. Inasmuch as people compare it to the flu, that's because the flu is badly underestimated and has killed a large number of people. The 1918 pandemic, for example, killed several of my own family.
For (2) I didn't say it was wrong or immoral, I said it was terrible specifically because it causes mistrust. Someone who does not like you cannot be expected to make good decisions on your behalf.
And what people saw was others prioritizing their own safety and not caring about anyone else. E.G. with the early mask advice the doctors appeared to be prioritizing themselves. There are actually good and rational reasons why doctors should be protected first in such a case, but the notion that they'll stab you in the back does not engender trust.
For (3), I've not argued otherwise, I'm simply pointing out more effective means of it based on actually talking to a lot of people who are skeptical of the medical advice being given and successfully convincing some to get vaccinated.
It's true that I've seen instances of abject quackery, but part of the problem is that they get their veneer of false credibility via comparison to the more visible failures.
> It's not like we're telling people giant wartime lies to keep them onside.
But I get it, it's hard to motivate people towards moderation and so much easier to push people towards one extreme or another.
Like, this isn't some existential risk, this is something that's going to make a lot of people miserable when a lot of grandparents die and the hospitals get flooded. This is from people not having any intuitive understanding of exponential equations (or S-curves) and not realizing how quickly this stuff explodes in a population. This is people being selfish and going around sick or not taking precautions because they don't understand asymptomatic spread or how just spreading the virus that's probably (but not necessarily) harmless to them is likely to kill a lot of people.
Sure, the science is open, but the people need someone they can actually trust who cares about them to translate it for them. That too many would trust random quacks talking about how iron ions or some BS are responsible for Covid and the vaccine allegedly makes you magnetic or something (seriously, I don't even understand this nonsense, that's just what they said), as I saw recently, just makes me sad that it's hard to bridge the trust gap here.
I mean, sure, I can point out that no, my arm is not magnetic now. And yes, just for the hell of it, I really did check despite this being an incredibly stupid theory. But that only does so much.
I don't think we're at half the population who are going to avoid vaccines, maybe more like 10%, though they're noisier than average, so it's hard to get a read on it. From other data, hopefully things work out at around 80% vaccinated, so we may be okay as long as we work on bridging the gap in trust by doing our best to get informed consent by talking through people's fears.
I fear this requires more of a one-on-one approach with family/friends/acquaintances discussing this on a personal level rather than mass communication, though, and I'm well aware of how badly that scales.
the techniques to push things on people via social proof and whatnot smack of manipulation and people are rightfully suspect of that
The problem is that they're not suspect enough. They apply different standards to different sources of manipulation. If they were consistent in their suspicion, we wouldn't be having this problem.
That's a fair point and you can and should press people for their sources and how they can validate them because that's a good point of comparison when you're able to point out ways that things can be checked and they're not.
For example, some people were nattering on about the vaccine remaining in the blood supply or whatever for years after and worrying that they would somehow acquire a vaccine that way. For that, you can point to the mRNA sequences on Github and tell them about the tests that can be used to detect them.
Meanwhile there's some incoherent nonsense about the vaccine making your arm magnetic and free radicals from someone on 4chan who claims to be posting 2nd hand info with no sources. You can give them a damn magnet and let them see that it doesn't stick to the arm they vaccinated you in.
With all due respect , Only people who have not seen how quickly a COVID case can turn dangerous , can be worried about the risks of COVID vaccine. Please take your COVID vaccines.
If you go to a doctor with some kind of pain and she prescribes you some pills, are you hesitant to take them? Are you questioning the science behind these pills? Are you accusing companies the pills are a fraud and government for peddling them for corporate enrichment? Are you looking at list of side effects and say, because it has potential sideffects you are not going to take it?
No, you just take the pill because you trust your doctor, you trust the process is providing you reasonable safety.
Have there been issues in the past? Of course there have been, but the idea is to fix the system rather than deny its value.
Peddling FUD is exactly what anti vaccine movement does where there is no reason to fear it. Just do the best job we can running the process correctly (ie holding "big pharma" to be responsible for what they produce).
Don't be so sure, there are a lot of people who are on the fence and just keep quiet. I know enough of them that I'm pushing them towards getting vaccinated with some success, but on average I find more are merely hesitant than outright anti-vax and I think the raw numbers may tip things because very few are completely anti-vax if you really talk things over with them.
The modal vaccine 'skeptic' with respect to covid mostly complies with things while people are watching and is worried about something in their life forcing them to take the vaccine and putting off the choice as long as they can.
Some are combing through VAERS data, reading stuff from scientists about how this stuff works, etc. so I think what we really know is more accessible stuff to relay what we do and do not know as factually as possible without trying to directly convince anyone, instead making an honest best effort to put the 'informed' into 'informed consent'.
Yeah, there will always be a few who don't go for it, but if you want to help the most people who are nervous, that's the best approach to take as someone who has managed to convince a few nervous people to get vaccinated.
I'm doing my best to help people in that vein, but I'm only one person.
I made what I thought was an honest effort to evaluate the risks of vaccination versus the risks of the virus, but I ended up with a clear cut answer. Could you please point out the dishonest part?
How is that more clear than "True: A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link from deaths to COVID-19 vaccines"?
Please don't say "Just to be clear" and say something agreeing with what I posted. That's actually less clear because casual readers will think you're arguing against me.
Britain - which is of course highly vaccinated - is seeing recent small (so far) problems with spikes as well [1], due to the Delta (India B.1.617.2) variant now spreading there. There doesn't seem to be much consensus as to what a high-vaccination (and, in theory, high herd immunity) location like Britain might expect against that variant. The US will find out pretty soon how the mRNA vaccines hold up against it, as I imagine it'll blanket the US in the coming months.
My understanding is that the estimated range for herd immunity was quite a large range, from 60-90%. I suppose 75 is right in the middle of that, but given the big range, getting more data seemed prudent.
Edit: i missed that we're talking about CoronaVac, where the range i cited was for a different vaccine.
75% seemed to be from immune people (from that nature article that showcased the maths). It's curious to me a 50%(correct me if I'm wrong) efficiency vaccine would work at 75%. I guess they had some natural immunity already?
EDIT: Nevermind, it would work anyway because the vaccines prevent more dangerous effects. So if you vaccinate at-risk people, ofc your deaths would lower
75% of population getting a vaccine with 50% efficacy could induce heard immunity, it depends what the reproduction rate is. Covid has a fairly high reproduction rate so it seems unlikely (although the 50% number might be incorrect), but as a general principle its possible for 75% of pop with 50% efficacy to trigger heard immunity if the viruses reproduction rate was low enough.
Mixed with other efforts, E.G. masking and social distancing, create sufficient reduction to make previously stalling campaigns sufficiently effective. Maybe enough to strangle the disease out if those other measures are held long enough.
From what I recall you'd need about 50% immunity for herd immunity to be reached at a minimum. Assuming 50% 3fficiency (worst case), you would need at least 13% already immune, which seems possible. But imo the efficiency might just be higher like parent said, or it might not be there yet, but deaths slow down because of the vaccine.
> It's curious to me a 50%(correct me if I'm wrong) efficiency vaccine
From the article that's the lowest estimate:
> The results of the experiment could give a boost to the CoronaVac, which is being used by dozens of developing countries. There was some controversy about the vaccine this year, after clinical trials in Brazil, Indonesia and Turkey put its efficacy in a range of 50% to 90%.
Except the first vaccines mentioned require functional cold chains, which a country like Brazil does not have.
While things like the Gamelaya vaccine deserved the slagging it got, that in no way makes me any happier.
We need vaccines like the ones from China and Russia that don't require negative stupid Celsius to store and distribute so we can get everybody on this planet vaccinated.
That's all well and good, but Seychelles is the most vaccinated country on earth, got the Chinese vaccine, and had another COVID surge, leading to a Chinese authority advising them to give everyone a THIRD DOSE of the vaccine.
China made several 'traditional' vaccines instead of using mRNA technology like Sinovac. They have significantly lower effectivity numbers from what I've seen (~60% vs. ~90%). On the plus side, I think they also have fewer side effects.
That said, it's worth clarifying that their lesser effectivity comes from technological differences, not merely from being Chinese in origin.
I think it's more helpful to clarify that point than to discuss motives because it's true that some of the vaccines that happen to be Chinese in origin are provably less effective according to published studies, it's just not true that their Chinese origin is in any way causing this difference.
That's the first thing I thought when I saw this (hopefully your detractors will explain themselves). It seems almost tautological. If you've accepted that the vaccine is effective, then it's effective when it gets used at scale.
You're going down a dangerous road with that "seems almost tautological" perspective, because it is only one step away from "it's tautological, why bother checking?"
Yes. Sometimes science seems silly for confirming things we think we already know. But if we don’t confirm them scientifically (especially when the stakes are high) we aren’t much better off than the magically-minded folk… Also, vaccine effectiveness in the real world is an important area of study, surely it’s good to know with higher certainty that the vaccine is effective against today’s disease, no?
Interesting, and I agree. The opposite result, mass vaccination and no change in outcome would have been important news, because it's new and unexpected information. But news that a vaccine that is shown to work works is a much less interesting outcome.
Vaccines are designed and created based on enormous body of knowledge gathered over the past century.
We know it works for sure because of trust in all that knowledge. We know what viruses are, how they work in principle. We can use that knowledge to predict what is going to happen if we disrupt how they multiply or spread or gain access to our cells.
That knowledge is not self evident -- it has been hard won by generations of scientists.
>We know what viruses are, how they work in principle. We can use that knowledge to predict what is going to happen if we disrupt how they multiply or spread or gain access to our cells.
I think that's a misapprehension of how drug development works in practice. The models can lead towards discoveries, but most drugs fall out of the pipeline due to being unexpectedly unsafe or ineffective. The "checking if it actually works" step is the most important part of medicine by a large margin.
What I meant is we know what happens if we have working vaccine. Meaning that working vaccine leads to less people being sick and that leads to less deaths from virus.
As to the vaccine itself it is usually easy to come up with a formula that can disrupt the virus (any potent poison or lava flow can do that). The difficult part is that the formula must also not disrupt anything important. No amount of knowledge about virology can help with the second part, human body is vastly more complex than the virus.
I should have been clearer. I meant that if it was shown to be effective in clinical trials, then it's unsurprising that it worked when deployed in practice.
The strains in the wild at the time of the clinical trials are different from the strains in the wild now. Furthermore, the trials did not test herd immunity, only direct immunity.
No one knows the herd immunity threshold for these vaccines. Based on cases of vaccinated people getting Covid infections, this is just the vaccine preventing serious infections.
Your link doesn't contradict anything I said so I'm not sure why you are claiming it's "misinformation".
A 90% reduction of infection means vaccinated individuals still get infected. That's what other countries have seen as seen.[1]
300 unvaccinated COVID-19 cases in current Singapore outbreak vs 78 vaccinated
If vaccinated people still get infected (even asymptomatically or at a lower rate) then they can transmit to the unvaccinated. There is no sterilizing immunity therefore the herd immunity threshold is likely much higher than 75%. Basically if you aren't vaccinated, you aren't protected.
Pretty impressive result for a vaccine that's been shown to barely have the 50% efficacy threshold to make the cut (and with doubts about its results due to no releasing of trial data). Shows high promise for countries using mRNA vaccines.
This seems like good news for a country like Bahrain. It’s unfortunate that the Chinese vaccine isn’t as effective as the competition (such that the current ~50% deployment isn’t enough), but getting to 75% is a realistic goal still.
Let's hope to see more studies like this. Here in Hong Kong there is a prevailing public view of the vaccines being too new and created too quickly esp the mRNA ones. Public don't understand that mRNA was decades in the making and is engineered which is why available so quickly. The cultivated traditional vaccines took a little longer due to process. But maybe now people will understand the importance of herd immunity because until that is achieved world wide then this pandemic will stay with us. I worry it will be like tuberculosis and hang around amongst the poor and dense populations, further reducing their chances for good quality of life in places with large populations,high density, and prevailing poverty.
COVID deaths are plunging across the northern hemisphere, because of seasonality effects.
For example Ukraine has vaccinated only 2.3% of its population with at least one dose, but COVID cases are down 81% from peak and are continuing to decline.
This is a Chinese vaccine, probably looking for good western PR. Since the dates where omitted one can safely assume they timed the 2nd jab with the end if a flu season. A quick google shows this is March - April. Covid deaths spike during the flu season. They should realistically compare to average deaths for that time period, rather than comparing flu season deaths to non flu season deaths.
Is the flu much of a problem this year? I thought the flu infection rate was way down due to social distancing and lockdowns. The comparison you are suggesting might not be an accurate one.
I didn't say anything about the flu. The flu season is a weather event, causing more death for the most common respiratory virus currently circulating. If we are talking about the flu its almost zero
That's a non standard way to use the phrase "flu season". I would expect that most people would think you are talking about the flu if you use that phrase. If I talked about how COVID spiked during baseball season, people would wonder what the relationship between COVID and baseball is.
Why am I getting down voted. The flu season is a weather related event that causes human immune system weakness. Its clear they timed their study to the end of this event. The dates I gave are Brazil's flu season.
20 deaths in March/2021 to 6 in April/2021. When you go to see the stats since April/2020, you'll notice that there were full months with 0 or 1 death. [0]
Too soon, too small sample to draw such conclusions.
[0] For ex., search for "Serrana" in this site: https://especiais.gazetadopovo.com.br/coronavirus/casos-no-b...
edit: typo, should be "april/2020"