“I looked for questions on the polio vaccine and saw one in 1954 that asked if you wanted to get it—60% said yes and 31% no.”

Posted on by

Apparently there are surveys all over the world saying that large minorities of people don’t want to take the coronavirus vaccine. If it was just the U.S. we could explain this as partisanship, but it’s happening in other countries too. This seems like a new thing, no? When there was talk of the anti-vax movement a few years ago, I recall it being something like 10% or fewer parents not vaccinating their kids. One difference is that vaccinating your kids is the default (no vaccine, no school), whereas the coronavirus vaccine is an option. Defaults matter. But is there more to it than this?

I asked some public-opinion experts and this is what they told me:

Bob Shapiro said:

I did a quick iPOLL search. Regarding the flu non-flu vaccine takers is more the norm when it comes to flu shots and we saw it with the swine flu. I have not looked at any of this by partisanship. The current irony is that Trump can claim credit on the vaccine front but his supporters may not be more inclined to take it. It is related to trust, etc. Also, some people have an aversion to injections.

And he pointed to this recent research article, Policy Views and Negative Beliefs About Vaccines in the United States, by Dominik Stecula, Ozan Kuru, Dolores Albarracin, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson.

David Weakliem wrote:

I looked for questions on the polio vaccine and saw one in 1954 that asked if you wanted to get it—60% said yes and 31% no. There was also one on whether you’d like your children to get it and 75% said yes and 17% no (of the people who had children). That was more “no” answers than I expected. Maybe a significant number of people are always reluctant to try something new, or at least to be among the first to try it. I think there has been a change in the media—they used to be more deferential to the authorities and less inclined to report news that might promote doubts. Today they are more willing to report on anti-vaccine sentiments and on potential problems or limitations of the vaccines. I’m not an expert in the media, but that’s my impression.

To which Bob added:

David makes a very good point on the media. Market forces lead the media to emphasize conflict wherever they can find it. Polio and the 1947(?) smallpox scare in NYC may have been the high point of positivity toward vaccines. Also the big push on polio circa 1960 or so involved two doses of sugar cubes and a mass campaign for everyone to take them.

Bob also says that this is a good research topic, and I agree.

P.S. More polling data here from Civiqs.

129 thoughts on ““I looked for questions on the polio vaccine and saw one in 1954 that asked if you wanted to get it—60% said yes and 31% no.””

    • My interpretation of Tuskegee being cited over and over again was not so much that there was a direct link between that and general mistrust among the black community but that there was an indirect link. I thought it was more of a persistence kind of thing where Tuskegee was one of the (many) reasons for mistrust 80 years ago and that mistrust persists in an inter-generational kind of way. And that the reason why Tuskegee is cited so often by the media and others is that it’s a straightforward example of something bad. Explaining things like medical deserts or differential clinical treatment is harder and more subtle whereas Tuskegee is a glaring example that everyone can agree was a bad thing.

      But reading that article you linked made me realize that talking about Tuskegee instead of contemporary racism can be used for nefarious purposes. Thanks for sharing.

      • My take is somewhat different. I agree that medical deserts and differential clinical treatment are hard to explain. But I don’t think they want an explanation: they want victimhood because victimhood sells. When they place many more vaccination sites in minority neighborhoods and minorities (relatively) don’t show up, they need an explanation and neither medical deserts nor differential clinical treatment can explain this phenomenon. (I’m also somewhat skeptical that this is even *is* a phenomenon, as the commonly cited statistics %blacks vaccinated vs %blacks in population ignores age in two ways: it ignores the fact that children aren’t being vaccinated and ignores the fact that black life expectancies are lower so that the 75+ population is more white than the population as a whole. But I haven’t quantified this.)

        I think that once the vaccine is made available to any group in a way that essentially guarantees access to anyone interested (and we have probably only reached that with hospital workers and 75+ only) then the dissenters are on their own (in those groups only, of course.) So long as the vaccine protects against serious illness and death to the recipient, and so long as hospital resources aren’t overrun, the public health component is over, save exhortation and advertising. In that context, constant reminders about Tuskegee are positively harmful, undercutting the central messaging.

        By April or May, when everyone who wants the vaccine can get it at no cost in their own neighborhood even after having heard hundreds of public service announcements, demonstrations and sermons there will be no victims except in the most attenuated sense.

        • Jonathan (another one) said,
          “I think that once the vaccine is made available to any group in a way that essentially guarantees access to anyone interested (and we have probably only reached that with hospital workers and 75+ only)”

          I hope we have reached that with hospital workers, but I’m skeptical that we have reached it with 75+. The reality (as I have encountered it, as a 75+ person) is that the second priority group (after essential workers) has been 65+, not 75+. After having signed up on several waiting lists several weeks ago, I finally got my first COVID shot this past Wednesday. Second one will come in middle of March. And I live in a metropolitan area, where it was easy to get to the site where the shots were given. The situation is worse for people who live in small towns and rural areas. They may have to travel a considerable distance to get a shot, and may have to rely on a friend or relative or other volunteer to take them to a site where they can get the vaccine.

        • > When they place many more vaccination sites in minority neighborhoods and minorities (relatively) don’t show up, they need an explanation and neither medical deserts nor differential clinical treatment can explain this phenomenon.

          I don’t think this is true? Or at least I think it’s not likely to be true. The criticism, in fact, has been that rollout has not targeted minority communities. There’s generally less availability in lower income minority communities and low income workers (of whom minorities make a disproportionate share) have jobs where they have to physically be at work and so may not have the time to keep clicking refresh on the appointment websites or wait in line or even get to the vaccination sites during the hours they’re open.

          I think there have also been reports of similar issues with the elderly where some don’t have the means to sign up or transport themselves.

        • You may be right. I probably have some availability bias from my presence in the NYC metro where people aren’t even allowed to register for the vaccine at some sites if they don’t live in the putatively underserved Zip code. Many of these open up very shortly afterwards to all Zip codes from lack of take-up.

  2. They rushed the polio vaccine due to the hysteria and ignored the lab studies showing it could be dangerous. Then to convince people it was safe, a main proponent and investor Dr. Alton Oschner publically vaccinated his two grandchildren. One died and the other was paralyzed for life. Only then did they finally recall the vaccine.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernice_Eddy
    https://www.nytimes.com/1955/05/05/archives/bulbar-polio-kills-doctors-grandson.html

    So the 31% were correct to be wary in 1954 and the 61% incorrect.

    • The Salk vaccine was a killed-virus vaccine. There was a disaster when Cutter Labs, one of the manufacturers, failed to completely kill the virus in a large batch. I was a kid at the time and had gotten the polio vaccine (probably from a different batch), so I remember the incident well. However, people kept taking the vaccine, and there were not more problems, until the Salk vaccine was replaced by the Sabin vaccine, which used an attenuated live virus.

      • There was a disaster when Cutter Labs, one of the manufacturers, failed to completely kill the virus in a large batch.

        That is somewhat misleading. This problem was identified but the vaccines were distributed anyway. The failure to pay attention to data no one liked to see was really the proximal cause of the disaster.

        The exact same thing is going on now with these covid vaccines, in particular the mRNA ones. The problems were always most likely to appear in the frail, after waning, when exposed to new strains. For reasons I cannot understand they failed to directly study this scenario at all, but there is tons of indirect evidence that weak antibodies enhance the infectiousness of SARS2 (just as they did for SARS).

        There are other glaring holes as well, but that is the main one.

        • Anoneuoid –

          > The failure to pay attention to data no one liked to see was really the proximal cause of the disaster…The exact same thing is going on now with these covid vaccines, in particular the mRNA ones.

          W/r/t the panels of experts who reviewed the vaccines prior to authorization, how do you know (1) what data they do and don’t “like?” and what they did and didn’t “pay attention to?”

          Please show your evidence – (not your speculation/reverse engineering based on personal incredulity)

        • I provided the links already, but cant make you click them. Please just stop with these inane comments to everything I write here.

        • Anoneuoid –

          > I provided the links already

          Your links don’t support your claims as to what the reviewers “like” or what they “pay attention tom” Those claims are your speculation.

          You’re entitled to your speculation about what goes on in other people’s heads. It’s even of some value for you to offer your speculation.

          > Please just stop with these inane comments to everything I write here.

          Sometimes I ask you to provide evidence for claims that you make. I don’t respond to “everything [you] write” here.

        • Please note – I’m referring to your claims about how the reviewers evaluated the mRNA vaccines.

          And this –

          “For reasons I cannot understand…”

          Beyond your assumption that you know what they did and didn’t “study,” that is the kind of thing that I mean when I say arguing from personal incredulity…

        • Your links don’t support your claims as to what the reviewers “like” or what they “pay attention tom” Those claims are your speculation.

          The link shows what I said happened. It was reported the polio vaccine was causing polio before distributing it to the public and this inconvenient information was ignored, leading to mass harm.

          Further, afaik “the panels of experts who reviewed the vaccines prior to authorization” never even saw this information, so it was someone else that ignored it. So that is another strawman you have created.

        • Once again, my questions were related the mRNA vaccines, as in…

          > The exact same thing is going on now with these covid vaccines, in particular the mRNA ones.

          Which I quoted. And then posted another comment to make sure you know that’s what I was asking about.

        • Anoneuoid –

          So who is it that’s “not paying attention” to data they “don’t like?”

          Please be specific.

          > And you’re only going to know about rare adverse events once these vaccines are out there, because even in a best-case scenario, they are tested on 20,000 or 30,000 people, not 20 million or 30 million people. So you’re only going to know about a rare adverse event post-licensure. But there are systems in place like the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which I think can pick that up. And the CDC is certainly well aware of this and has systems in place to look for this once the vaccine rolls out.

          https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/936937

        • Please note – I’m referring to your claims about how the reviewers evaluated the mRNA vaccines.

          As already noted, I never made any such claim about “reviewers” in regards to either polio or covid. If you follow the link you will see:

          the licensing committee never saw one important peice of information

          https://archive.org/details/cutterincidentho00offi/page/62/mode/2up

          I watched the FDA zoom meetings for Pfizer and Moderna, the “the panels of experts who reviewed the vaccines prior to authorization” appeared completely unaware of any issue with ADE when there are weak antibodies.

          That is once again, some strawman you are creating.

          To see an example of this info being ignored, someone can check figure 5 of this paper: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.25.427948v1

          Why does it go unmentioned that half the Moderna sera samples resulted in negative neutralization when diluted (more cells than usual were infected)? This is exactly the type of data that put a stop to SARS vaccines.

        • Anoneuoid –

          > I watched the FDA zoom meetings for Pfizer and Moderna, the “the panels of experts who reviewed the vaccines prior to authorization” appeared completely unaware of any issue with ADE when there are weak antibodies.

          Once again, you speculate based on what “appeared” to be the case to you – and from that argue from personal incredulity.

          I the link I provided you, Offit and Topol, as two high profile people in the public eye, discuss ADE back in September as a well recognized problem.

          Here’s a post from someone who’s responding because he’s being asked about it so much – yet apparently you think those that are charged with evaluating the vaccines don’t even know it exists:

          https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/02/12/antibody-dependent-enhancement-and-the-coronavirus-vaccines

          As again you argue from personal incredulity:

          > Why does it go unmentioned that half the Moderna sera samples resulted in negative neutralization when diluted (more cells than usual were infected)? This is exactly the type of data that put a stop to SARS vaccines.

        • More people not paying attention:

          > Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease is a general concern for the development of vaccines and antibody therapies because the mechanisms that underlie antibody protection against any virus have a theoretical potential to amplify the infection or trigger harmful immunopathology.

          >> Our objective is to evaluate the hypothesis that antibody-mediated enhancement is a consequence of low-affinity antibodies that bind to viral entry proteins but have limited or no neutralizing activity; antibodies that were elicited by infection with or vaccination against a closely related serotype, termed ‘cross-reactive’ antibodies; or suboptimal titres of otherwise potently neutralizing antibodies. We assess whether there are experimental approaches that are capable of reliably predicting ADE of disease in humans and conclude that this is not the case.

          >>> It is clear that after many years, and considerable attention, the understanding of ADE of disease after either vaccination or administration of antiviral antibodies is insufficient to confidently predict that a given immune intervention for a viral infection will have negative outcomes in humans. Despite the importance that such information would have in the COVID-19 pandemic, in vitro assays do not predict ADE of disease. Most animal models of vaccines and antibody interventions show protection, whereas those that suggest potential ADE of disease are not definitive and the precise mechanisms have not been defined.

        • There’s also this:

          > We argue that ADE should be given full consideration in the safety evaluation of emerging candidate vaccines for SARS-CoV-2.

          https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-020-0321-6

          I sent the corresponding author an email asking for thoughts on the level of consideration given w/r/t older people previously infected in the development of COVID vaccines and I’ll let you know if there’s a response:

        • That review from last July reports no studies of ADE where it is likely: In the frail, after waning, and/or vs a new strain. This is still the case.

          They also say there is no good animal model of severe covid. If you only studied covid in young/healthy humans you would also find it difficult to see severe covid.

        • As Offit said, there’s a limit to how much you can know about the potential for relatively rare reactions in advance of getting the vaccines out there. As to what is a sufficient test of such potential outcomes – the judgements are necessarily subjective. He indicated that ADE is a concern, and that they’re watching closely for it.

          Seems to me that your contention – that because you aren’t sufficiently impressed that they’ve given it enough consideration, they therefore haven’t been “paying attention” to ADE in older people who were previously infected because they don’t “like” it – is highly implausible.

          But maybe you’re a better mind-reader than I.

        • As Offit said, there’s a limit to how much you can know about the potential for relatively rare reactions in advance of getting the vaccines out there. As to what is a sufficient test of such potential outcomes – the judgements are necessarily subjective. He indicated that ADE is a concern, and that they’re watching closely for it.

          All they had to do is repeat these exact same studies with SARS2 instead of SARS:

          We found that higher concentrations of anti-sera against SARS-CoV neutralized SARS-CoV infection, while highly diluted anti-sera significantly increased SARS-CoV infection and induced higher levels of apoptosis. Results from infectivity assays indicate that SARS-CoV ADE is primarily mediated by diluted antibodies against envelope spike proteins rather than nucleocapsid proteins. We also generated monoclonal antibodies against SARS-CoV spike proteins and observed that most of them promoted SARS-CoV infection. Combined, our results suggest that antibodies against SARS-CoV spike proteins may trigger ADE effects. The data raise new questions regarding a potential SARS-CoV vaccine, while shedding light on mechanisms involved in SARS pathogenesis.

          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25073113/

          To evaluate the efficacy of existing vaccines against infection with SHC014-MA15, we vaccinated aged mice with double-inactivated whole SARS-CoV (DIV). Previous work showed that DIV could neutralize and protect young mice from challenge with a homologous virus14; however, the vaccine failed to protect aged animals in which augmented immune pathology was also observed, indicating the possibility of the animals being harmed because of the vaccination15. Here we found that DIV did not provide protection from challenge with SHC014-MA15 with regards to weight loss or viral titer (Supplementary Fig. 5a,b). Consistent with a previous report with other heterologous group 2b CoVs15, serum from DIV-vaccinated, aged mice also failed to neutralize SHC014-MA15 (Supplementary Fig. 5c). Notably, DIV vaccination resulted in robust immune pathology (Supplementary Table 4) and eosinophilia (Supplementary Fig. 5d–f). Together, these results confirm that the DIV vaccine would not be protective against infection with SHC014 and could possibly augment disease in the aged vaccinated group.

          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26552008/

          It could have easily been done last spring. How many trillions of dollars were spent and none went towards this?

        • “Why does it go unmentioned that half the Moderna sera samples resulted in negative neutralization when diluted (more cells than usual were infected)? This is exactly the type of data that put a stop to SARS vaccines.”

          Are you sure this is why the development and testing of SARS vaccines came to a stop?

          And not the fact that SARS essentially disappeared after about 8,000 confirmed cases worldwide, so there was no longer a need? And that without the disease existing in the wild no trial would ever run to completion?

  3. My observation is that when one asks a question about the vaccine, one is labelled, almost immediately, as an anti-vaxxer. Very peculiar.

    Last night, one journalist claimed that QAnon and the anti-vaxxer progressives had joined forces. I was like ‘prove it’. That comment elicited an explosive response. The attitude? How dare you question even that link?

    I think that one of the reasons for these extreme responses is that people really don’t read as carefully as they should; thereby, misrepresenting & misinterpreting on the basis of simply reading tweets and news articles. It’s concerning. At least to me.

    Bottom line, there has been more skepticism of expertise b/c quite frankly some science has been found to be wrong too.

    • Sameera –

      > My observation is that when one asks a question about the vaccine, one is labelled, almost immediately, as an anti-vaxxer. Very peculiar.

      I don’t find it all that peculiar, as there are many, very high profile grifters out there (like Alex Berenson) who are promoting nonsense about vaccines on very high profile platforms like Fox News.

      So the issue becomes polarized and ties into ideological identity. It becomes zero sum, scorched earth. You’re either an “us” or an “other” and basically anything you say will be seen as a signal.

      But that dynamic predominates within a particular cohort – among those who are particularly “triggered” on the issue. It depends on who you’re asking the question to.

      I’m sure that there are many people who wouldn’t respond to questions about the vaccine in such a fashion.

      • Never accessed Alex Berenson until you mentioned his name here.

        Yes, not all would respond in such a fashion. But there have been many tweets alluding to the fear of being censured on Twitter.

        Maybe people want more consistent messaging about the trajectory of the virus and vaccine efficacy and effectiveness.

        • Sameera –

          > But there have been many tweets alluding to the fear of being censured on Twitter.

          Clearly Twitter has some concern about its platform being used to promote misinformation regarding vaccines that could cost millions? of lives.

          And the issue of Twitter taking down tweets or accounts had become highly polarized. Personally, I don’t consider it “censorship” although certainly many people think they’re being “censored.”

          It’s a hard line to walk. I’m not sure how it should be done, but I wouldn’t expect it to ever be done perfectly.

          No one’s going to say “My post was taken down because I was promoting misinformation.” Everyone who’s post is taken down is going to claim victimhood.

          So what’s the answer in this situation? I dunno. But I do know it’s a mess.

          > Maybe people want more consistent messaging about the trajectory of the virus and vaccine efficacy and effectiveness.

          I’m not sure what you mean by that. I’m sure people do want more uniform messaging. But is that a realistic hope? It’s a very dynamic process within a very complex and vast communicative environment.

        • Thanks Joshua,
          I have much respect for Paul Offit. I also lean to his views, by in large.

          What are my expectations?

          I don’t engage in back-biting and demonizing those who disagree with me. I weely weely hate that habit of mind. I was surprised how these habits play a role in expertise. In fact it is a consistent theme of mind. Not sure whether refraining from engaging in both makes much difference is all that helpful. But it leads to such crankiness. I expect tho that we stick the merits and demerits of a position.

          I also am surprised at the extent of censorship on social media. I hope there to be less of it.

          And last, I hope that we all stay healthy and enjoy life.

      • Hi John, thanks for that article. Below some random thoughts.

        Re: For nearly an hour Saturday, about 50 vaccination opponents and right-wing supporters of former President Donald Trump delayed COVID-19 vaccinations when they protested at the entrance to Dodger Stadium, the site of a mass vaccination campaign.
        —
        As I speculated earlier, this could be a small subset of anti-vaxxers. Further on in the article, theu author seems to imply that the ‘right-wingers at the protest were not necessarily under the same auspices. It doesn’t identify how many ‘right-wing’ Trump supporters there were exactly at this protest. They lean to calling COVID19 a hoax. Additionally, it doesn’t identify the political leanings of those 50 anti-vaxxers.

        Admittedly, there has been a subset of experts that have been questioning the value of lockdowns and vaccinating population under 60 or so. Great Barrington Declaration signees have spearheaded their own proposals along these questions, which, in hindsight, seems to be aligned with Paul Offit’s own estimate of the numbers infected [estimate 90,000-105,000]which Offit characterizes as already on the trajectory of herd immunity. Sunetra Gupta had been hinting at the prospect of herd immunity as far back as June, 2020. Seems plausible to me.

        • “which Offit characterizes as already on the trajectory of herd immunity.”

          Offit doesn’t suggest natural herd immunity as a strategy.

          Every new case of covid 19 leads us further down the path to herd immunity. No one rejects that obvious truth. Especially those that die as a result of their disease – no one is more immune than a dead person.

          Obviously naturally acquired immunity combined with vaccination induced immunity will combine to give us herd immunity assuming no mutation which completely escapes that immunity mutates in the interim.

          Note that Offit is on record as supporting a single dose of the mRNA vaccines to those who have already had the disease, rather than a full course, based on serology tests showing they reach about the same levels of antibody titers as covid-naive subject who get both doses.

          His motivation for that support is to stretch the vaccine supply in order to vaccinate as many as possible in the shortest time possible. It is obviously his belief that the immunity imparted by vaccination is superior to that one gets from being infected. He does NOT recommend that those who have had it not get vaccinated.

          To minimize the number of people who acquire immunity through becoming infected.

          Offit recognizes that people continue to become infected with covid. He in no way suggests that this is a good thing.

          “Sunetra Gupta had been hinting at the prospect of herd immunity as far back as June, 2020. Seems plausible to me.”

          The data for the UK going forward from June 2020 makes it absolutely clear that she was wrong, that the UK was nowhere near herd immunity at that time.

          Since June 30th 2020, the UK has had 14.7 times as many cases as the country did for the entire time of the epidemic up to June 30th. 14.7 times as many cases.

          From Feb 15th to June 30th 283K cases. From July 1 to yesterday, 3894K cases. How Gupta’s suggestion that the UK was close to herd immunity in June 30th can seem “plausible” boggles the mind.

  4. Interesting post.
    1. I have read several pieces over the last 12 months suggesting that comfortable majorities of the populations in France and Japan are disinclined to accept vaccines. interesting cross-cultural data points, if correct.
    2. I have several quite politically liberal friends who have made it quite clear that they have no intention at this time of getting a C19 vax. It would be interesting to understand what personality or other views correlate with such attitudes.
    3. The recent postings on the “Big Data, Plainly Spoken” weblog raises very interesting questions about the supportability of the beneficial claims relating to the 2 available and 1 soon to be available vaccines in the US. Nice discussions in BDPS of issues near and dear to the hearts of readers of this blog.

    • Thanks for that reference MJM. I am by no means an anti-vaxxer. I had my children vaccinated. I took a flu vaccine in the arl 90s and had an allergic reaction. Since then I haven’t had the flu nor the flu vaccine. I have continued to be around lots of people as well. My doctors have not recommended a flu vaccine since then either.

      I follow the top virologists & infectious disease specialists. I’m simply amazed at how the arguments have gone on social media too. A handful has undertaken good research and hypotheses. Much of it very optimistic about the COVID19 vaccines. But some critical questions remain; 1. durability of the vaccine and natural infections, 2. transmission potential after vaccination. Those are not trivial questions raised by Dr. Fauci and Dr Mina.

      • Why is the durability of the vaccine an issue?

        I mean, we may not be able to know the exact time range for immunity accurately right now but within the bounds of confidence intervals, is it going to change any descisions?

        As it is people take a new flu vaccine annually.

        It’s just that all these nitpicking arguments keep getting brought up but I don’t see any substantive issues that are going to change the vaccination policy descisions.

        For arguments sake let’s assume we need a booster dose 6 months from now; does that change the critical descision to vaccunate right now?

        I just feel a lot of these tangential issues muddy the pool and worse so for the technically unsavvy who latch on to some selective cherry picked factoid and use it an an excuse to delay vaccination.

        • Look up “accelerated blood clearance” and “anti-PEG antibodies”. Eg:
          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168365913004367

          It has found in the past that response to PEGylated drugs decreases each time (and risk of an adverse response increases) due to an ever increasing levels of anti-PEG antibodies. From what I have read, after the first exposire they last a couple weeks, after the second it is a couple months, etc.

          Both Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are PEGylated, this is another area where I couldn’t find any data, or even discussion.

          So I don’t think it is safe to assume you can keep giving boosters of these vaccines.

        • The related issue is these vaccinations amount to injecting PEG along with something that triggers an immune response. To me, this seems to be just like injecting PEG along with an adjuvant, which is what you would do if you wanted to trigger a strong immune response to PEG.

          I don’t know how it will work out but this is just another glaring blind spot. I’ve been starting to look at which companies rely on PEG-containing medications, foodstuffs, etc for their revenue because it is hard to see why adverse reactions to these products wouldn’t become much more common.

          https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213219820310072?via%3Dihub

        • Yes, but that’s my point precisely. Let’s assume this study is right and the response decreases and the adverse reaction risk increases.

          But what is this baseline risk of an adverse reaction in the first place. So even with a delta uptick how does it compare to the primary risk of dying of Covid.

          So far as I know these are totally different scales.

          So, yes there are unknowns but with what we know and any reasonable priors I don’t think we are worrying about risk events in the same ballpark.

        • The bigger issue would be the lack of response to the booster because the body sees the PEG and clears it right away.

          Then again, in the case of these vaccines maybe that means you get a *stronger* response since more liposomes will end up in immune cells to release the mRNA.

          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28958578/

          We really just need data on this.

        • Sure, let’s collect more data. But let’s do it as we go along with the vaccination.

          I don’t think the data we have nor theories or analysis warrant slowing down or stopping the vaccination till we collect this data.

        • I don’t think the data we have nor theories or analysis warrant slowing down or stopping the vaccination till we collect this data.

          That should have all been done already. The FDA has recommended you monitor for these antibodies in response to PEGylated drugs for years. It is nothing new.

        • Rahul,

          Just to clarify, I haven’t been arguing for or against vaccine policy decisions really b/c I conveyed only what I gleaned from COVID19 experts. Even I appeal to authority the wuss that I am. LOL

          What is implied in my view perhaps is that we do neglect base rate; by that I mean that the majority of infected has recovered without vaccines and treatments. That is played down and what comes across is that without vaccination, majority will experience severe symptoms and possibly death across all age groups. This virus has a steep age gradient. Fears are generated in different degrees some of which are based on the lack of and misinterpretations of data.

          I am all for offering the vaccine to vulnerable people: anyone who wants it. It is decision that each person has to make based on her/his own health profile and comfort level with the expertise.

  5. I remember getting the polio vaccine in my teens, when I was required to do so in order to go to the Girl Scout Roundup. There was another girl in my “patrol” whose parents did not consent to her getting the vaccine. She was so unhappy! We all felt so sorry for her — she was from a poorer section of town, and this was a really big opportunity for her. Her parents finally relented, but by then it was too late.

    • PS. I got my first COVID shot (Pfizer) this Wednesday. I would have gotten it sooner if I could have — I had been on waiting lists for quite some time when I finally was notified that I could make an appointment. It’s a beggars-can’t-be-choosers situation, at least around here.

  6. The historical and between-country comparisons are really helpful in contextualizing current American vaccine hesitancy!

    My initial hypothesis back in the summer when these reports were first coming out about significant vaccine hesitancy was that it wouldn’t be much of an issue as time went on. Even if you took the numbers at face value and said conservatively that only 50 percent of Americans would take the vaccine, that’s still a lot of people! And that by the time you vaccinated those people then there would be much more data on effectiveness and safety over a longer time period so folks who were initially hesitant would switch over and be willing to take the vaccine. And yeah there may be a not insignificant amount of people who remain reluctant but we don’t necessarily need everyone to get the vaccine to end the pandemic, just enough. I think I still believe in this hypothesis (but it really is just a hypothesis by a non-expert). The low vaccination rates we’re seeing in certain subgroups / communities seems to be better explained by poor rollout than hesitancy.

    Also, imo I think it makes a good amount of sense to be hesitant (distinguished from reluctant) as this stage. If you feel like your risk is low and your behavior won’t change significantly with / without the vaccine, then waiting a few months might not seem like a big deal. And not taking a vaccine now doesn’t mean the vaccine goes to waste either, it just means it would go to someone else who wants it. So you might interpret some hesitancy to be altruistic. Anyways, not saying that people should be hesitant right now but just saying that I think it’s understandable. No conspiracy theories needed here!

  7. > When there was talk of the anti-vax movement a few years ago, I recall it being something like 10% or fewer parents not vaccinating their kids. One difference is that vaccinating your kids is the default (no vaccine, no school), whereas the coronavirus vaccine is an option. Defaults matter. But is there more to it than this?

    I think there is and should be more to it than that. First of all, mRNA vaccines in general are a new technology compared to weakened/inactive virus vaccines. Second, if you take the ordinary process as a standard, these covid vaccines are rushed. That doesn’t necessarily mean the vaccines are bad, but it’s a fact that an ordinary vaccine in an ordinary year would not have been approved for mass inoculations with the level of scrutiny, the volume of data, and quality of understanding that the covid vaccines have had. That leaves two possibilities

    1. The ordinary vaccine process is a bunch of pointless bureaucratic red tape
    2. A risk is being taken that is not ordinarily acceptable

    I don’t personally know enough to distinguish between 1 and 2, and even if it’s 2 there’s a strong case that such a calculated risk is preferable to the alternative, but the sense that taking this vaccine is riskier than other taking other vaccines is completely reasonable to me.

    • My understanding is that vaccination under an Emergency Use Authorization [EUA] the vaccine can’t be mandated for all and administered to children under the age of 16.

      Each person filters potential vulnerability to infection through his subjective lens and access to different experts. As Sander Greenland has noted many times, we appeal to authority. And reading the articles don’t make it any easier to understand the science. Why it is a relatively confusing epistemic environment. Who do we trust? And why? Susan Haack I think addresses several key questions quite well, as she also analyzes legal cases entailing questions of scientific facts.

    • t’s a fact that an ordinary vaccine in an ordinary year would not have been approved for mass inoculations with the level of scrutiny, the volume of data, and quality of understanding that the covid vaccines have had.

      Well, science has progressed and at least three vaccines basically appeared to have been “ready–to–roll” simple because of the state oy their research, the Moderna,the Pfizer and the Gamaleya Sputnik V.

      The speed was incredible but rather than scrambling for funding and combing the woods for volunteers, governments were throwing money at vaccine researchers and there seems to have been mobs of volunteers. Something that struck me a while ago was that very high incidence of covid-19 meant that rather than having to wait years for enough people in Phase 3 trials to catch the bug, the very high infection rates in some countries meant that preliminary results were available very quickly. I even remember reading that one of the Chinese trials was slaw because they did not have the large outbreaks other countries had.

      This sleaves us with the possibility of long-term adverse impacts but my non-professional impression is that licensing authorities have far more data available in less time than for any previous vaccine.

      One source reports that Moderna has 5 trials in one country, pretty paltry compared with Pfizer’s 11 trials in 9 countries and Gamaleya’s 15 trials in 6 countries. https://covid19.trackvaccines.org/vaccines/

        • Thank you. Combination of an injured left hand that has me reduced to one-fingered typing (ahhha!) and a cat demanding way to much attention. I blame the “slaw” on the cat and the “sleaves” on me. It will be nice to get back to touch-typing. Oh, and the spellchecker for not reading my mind.

      • Yeah, this only took a year *directly* but there has been tons of *prior* work on mRNA vaccines in general that largely ‘translated’, from my non-expert understanding.

        Also, I think people really underestimate how far biotechnology has come in the last 20 years. (I would argue that this is partially because the FDA etc. are very slow to approve new things, so until this emergency we haven’t really seen what modern biotech can do medically… What the technology can fundamentally do is well ahead of market applications of it – a gap we don’t really see in, say, computer technology.)

  8. I find it interesting that so many of the people (not necessarily “progressive” anti-vaxxers maybe, but lots of people) who are strongly afraid of vaccines don’t have a comparable reaction to industrially processed food additives. Vaccines trigger a natural process within the body, and then their job is done. Yes, a poorly designed or fabricated vaccine could trigger other stuff we don’t want, but the point of trials is to reduce the likelihood of that to an acceptably small level. But esoteric substances in our food bioaccumulate and there is plausible reason to suspect impacts on a variety of systems from sperm production to brain chemistry.

    I wonder why one type of threat is so salient and the other almost invisible even after decades of attempting to arouse the public.

    • I find it interesting that so many of the people (not necessarily “progressive” anti-vaxxers maybe, but lots of people) who are strongly afraid of vaccines don’t have a comparable reaction to industrially processed food additives.

      No one forces you to eat that. If a government said from now on everyone should need to eat MSG if they want to fly, then you would see a comparable reaction.

      • Interesting you associate MSG with the substances I was referring to. Unless of course it was just a random pick, and you could have just as well said “everyone should need to eat complex carbohydrates”.

        Second, if you recall the OP, the topic is not “what should the government mandate” but what are people resistant to putting into their bodies.

        Third, actually a lot of people are more or less in the situation of being required to eat the food additives I’m referring to — prisoners, people in the military, anyone whose lunch needs to be eaten at a cafeteria, and anyone without ready access to food free of them. On top of that, we have a system of agricultural subsidies in the US which makes such questionably processed food cheaper than less processed alternatives. Quite a bit has been written about this.

        • I just searched food additives and MSG was the first to come up.

          Actually the first that came to mind was carrageenan because I recently had some free ice cream that I couldn’t give away because no one wanted that. I had never heard of it before. That is also pretty “natural” though.

          Mandates also make people not want to put the thing in their bodies.

    • Peter,

      Re: I find it interesting that so many of the people (not necessarily “progressive” anti-vaxxers maybe, but lots of people) who are strongly afraid of vaccines don’t have a comparable reaction to industrially processed food additives.
      —–
      My speculation is that this subset of anti-vaxxers who may not be sufficiently aware of industrially processed food additives is small. I might even question whether this subset actually has a a strong anti-vaxx message. Rather they think the virus is either a hoax or over-hyped.

  9. Current anti-vaccination sentiment is quite different from the not-so-distant past. There is money to be made today by convincing the public that it is being poisoned by George Soros, Bill Gates and other globalists. The globalist satin lovers push the vaccine in order to usher in the Chi-Com New World Order which will emasculate little boys and turn them into slaves. If you think I am exaggerating, you have not watched Alex Jones and his guests selling vitamin supplements for avoiding the non-existent disease which has never killed anyone—and antifa as the true cause of the riots at the Capitol last month. In case you doubt what I have just written, watch a segment or two.

    • Better not to watch. By even *touching* that, one is literally spreading the poison. That is the model. Every time you touch it you push it up in the rank order. Which is precisely why we are where we are today.

  11. Here are links to the full report on the trial of the Salk Polio Vaccine

    http://www.biostat.mcgill.ca/hanley/bios601/Polio/

    The participation rates can be more readily found on the excellent Paul Meier article

    http://www.biostat.mcgill.ca/hanley/c622/salk_trial.pdf

    In the ‘vaccinate grade 2 vs. don’t vaccinate grades 1 and 3’ portion of the study,
    123 thousand families declined and 221 thousand agreed .. so 37 No to 63 Yes

    In the Randomized (and double blind) portion, it was 338:401 (maybe because one didn’t know what one would get)

  12. With 60+ Million doses of mRNA vaccines given already and no large spike in deaths (quite the opposite), I think the fear over Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) that Anoneuoid has constantly mentioned is pretty clearly not an issue at the moment (maybe a booster will be needed at some point… could be). Furthermore the evidence out of Israel and a few other places that the Pfizer vaccine provides good protection after just *one* dose, and the fact that they’re still sticking to the 2 dose regiment among the 65+ age group suggests that insufficient and harmful “light” levels of antibodies are not the issue with this vaccine.

    • Oh I was also going to say that after 60M doses if there were abnormal levels of harmful side effects we’d be seeing them splattered all over the newspaper. This has to be one of the safest and most effective vaccines we’ve seen in a long time. People who say things like ‘I don’t want to get it first’ are somehow ignoring the fact that literally tens of millions of people have had it already. Not wanting to be “first” means, not wanting it in December maybe. By end of Feb, you’re not even close to “first”… just get the damn vaccine already.

      • They are obsessed, they are *consumed* by a fantasy perhaps peculiar to the age: they believe or will pretend to believe — at any cost to logic, and lately now, to even life or limb — that to live they depend upon no one else; that the public trust or consensus is a quagmire suitable only for fools or shabby devils of the first circle. That the sewers and roads and police and fire and public schools and so on down up and down are constructions which serve only contemptible creatures, or worse — they are trickery or theft.

        That left to his own talents the little man is a natural hero and can well take care of himself, thank you very much; or ought anyway to be given the chance to prove it! Never mind he cannot raise a single potato out of the ground without the implicit consensus of his neighbors; to at least leave him in peace for the interval required. No.

        The little hero of our age — if it were not for the intolerable drag exerted on his talents by the great mass of dull, sheep-like, worthless wool-gatherers and mass-men, if not for their interference, our little hero would long since have reached the stars: for by no more than mere “mouse clicks” he has long since attained a mastery of the sciences, recondite and deep; he has attained the metier of Copernicus or Galilei — if only the great mass of knaves and idiots weren’t obtruding in his way, with their stupid, obdurate craving to be led by equally stupid, obdurate schoolmen.

        The little hero of our age, armed with his smart-phone, his bottomless array of you-tube nonconformists, pontificators and pitchmen: he would amount to something, wouldn’t he — if it weren’t for the awful weight of the world, its indifference and its spite; and its demand: that he make his daily bread just like everyone else; with flour from the miller; water from the county aqueduct; fishes from the king’s fish-weir; tolls to be paid to pass the kings roads; and the other interminable obligations of a free man — the bridgework, the obligation to pay some fraction of a knight’s fee in time of national emergency when an army or navy is summoned….

        The little hero would depend upon no one at all; he supposes he practically does so already. That when he takes a step across the road, his feet alight on air, an inch above the tarred surface of the abomination … the public road that he’s forced to pay the upkeep up, though he has no need of it, the hero who walks in seven-league boots.

        • They are obsessed, they are *consumed* by a fantasy perhaps peculiar to the age: they believe or will pretend to believe — at any cost to logic, and lately now, to even life or limb — that to live they depend upon no one else; that the public trust or consensus is a quagmire suitable only for fools or shabby devils of the first circle. That the sewers and roads and police and fire and public schools and so on down up and down are constructions which serve only contemptible creatures, or worse — they are trickery or theft.

          I just rely on science (reason and evidence) instead of hope based on assumptions (which is religion).

    • Not to mention that mRNA technology is not particularly new. Well it’s quite a bit older than the iPhone at least.

      Even using it in humans isn’t much newer than the iPhone.

      After quite a lot of animal model studies it was determined to be safer than other forms of gene therapy (like viral vector transduction, for which phase I trials were limited to people with terminal illnesses for treatment of life threatening conditions… eg. no one was using them in phase I trials for flu vaccination).

      As a general platform mRNA vaccines had been had been injected into hundreds (maybe thousands but in 5 minutes I saw about 10 US registered clinical trials half of which were complete, some about 5 years ago.. so I didn’t do an exhaustive search).

      And several trials of mRNA tailored to specific tumor DNA sequences. And lots of studies about what forms and adjuvants are best for prevention of infection, vs treatment of infection, vs anti-tumor. A lot of which focused on trying to figure out what causes the immunogenic response, what pathways are used, how to modulate the response so it’s strong enough but not too strong.

      So the safety metric as a platform in GENERAL was relatively well established. So then you have to open to larger pool for further more specific safety profile and efficacy. As we all know 30k people or 80k people was never going to be enough to establish safety for extremely rare adverse events… but I think we can say after 60M doses that has been established. So yeah, by March you are several years past being first.

      Initially they estimated efficacy data wouldn’t be available until the winter, so they didn’t actually anticipate starting a vaccination program in the fall. But infection rates were so high everywhere in the summer they were able to establish efficacy earlier, (with the side effect of not knowing how long efficacy will last).

      People can argue we don’t know how long it will work, or if you can still transmit the virus. Fine. But it’s pretty clear that if you don’t want to DIE your best chance is being vaccinated (and then it is VERY good). How many of the 500K people (just in the US) would have loved to have that choice. (probably only half of them until it was already too late if the polling is to be believed.)

      Since we don’t know about transmissibility, this is one vaccine that I would say until we DO know, if you don’t want to take it GOOD. Let other people have it. If it were overly abundant, I would argue that there is still a community good to not filling hospitals and stressing that system (including my husband and our family). But since demand is still higher than supply no harm in disbelievers not taking it.

      Which is distinctly different from my take on almost all other vaccines (and things in general). We have a social contract where you take on a small risk to create a scenario that provides you and the entire population with a reward (one that is equal among almost all parties, and all parties also have to put in the same small risk). If you don’t want to be part of that contract, then you don’t get to take part in all the other benefits provided by society (food, water, roads, transportation, electricity, clothes, shelter, other people). But I admit I take a hard line on this subject that has actually cost me 2 friends who did not vaccinate or selectively vaccinated their kids.

      • I don’t disagree with most of what you conveyed here.

        Regardless of many have been inoculated, the longer term benefits and harms are still in question b/c the trials were concluded with a few months.

        My observation: The initial press releases and punditry claimed that the vaccine would reduce moderate to severe symptoms. Some even alleged that the vaccines would reduce or prevent transmission.

        Once the distribution process began, questions arose in medical podcasts & social media, as to vaccines’ length of immune protection, possibility of transmission. But one had to be following the guidance and exchanges among experts very closely. Much of the public got its information from news articles, Twitter, and mainstream medical experts like Sanjay Gupta or thru the White House Corona Virus briefings.

        But now experts have narrowed the claim to suggest that vaccination keeps you out of the hospital and prevents death. This frame is less informational than it seems. We know that most of the infected DO recover in any case, without needing to go to the hospital. There is a steep age gradient for hospitalizations and deaths.

        In fact it is estimated that in US 105 million or so has already been infected. Paul Offit offers a range of 90 to 105 million. About 30% so infected. I’ve heard Scott Gottlieb convey somewhat similar estimate. If correct, then one CAN hypothesize that most had, at most, experienced mild to moderate symptoms. Otherwise we would had larger hospitalization and death rates. We haven’t tested asymptomatics all that adequately. What I’m getting at is that we should also call attention to the rate that has recovered. Otherwise we neglect base rates. And this herd immunity estimate is a hopeful sign if correct.

        • “We have a social contract where you take on a small risk to create a scenario that provides you and the entire population with a reward (one that is equal among almost all parties, and all parties also have to put in the same small risk). If you don’t want to be part of that contract, then you don’t get to take part in all the other benefits provided by society”

          +1 and Repeated for emphasis.

        • Sameera –

          > This frame is less informational than it seems. We know that most of the infected DO recover in any case, without needing to go to the hospital.

          The studies out of places like Israel and Scotland are the differential benefit from vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated.

          Also, as for Gupta – she has been so wrong so many times (about, say, the trajectory of the pandemic in the UK), I’m surprised that you think she’s credible.

        • Sameera referred to the other Gupta (as if she’s credible) above. I was too lazy to locate my response up there.

        • I believe that Sunetra Gupta has, as as Offit, Redfield, and Gottlieb have estimated; claimed that nearly a 1/3 of US population has been infected. It’s your prerogative to accept that or not. By May or June, it is likely that we will reach 40 % heard immunity. It is hypothesized that India is at 60 % herd immunity. Of course these figures may be too optimistic.

          I think that the spearheaders of the Great Barrington Declaration phrased certain aspects of their hypotheses in unhelpful ways. They were focused on school reopenings which is a very controversial issue here in States.

        • Hey Josh, greetings!

          Can you link me to the studies to which you refer? I want to see How do these studies negate the statement I posted. What you seem to be implying is that vaccinating EVERYONE is superior in results as compared to acquiring immunity from a natural infection?

          My guess, though, is that we will have to wait and see what longer term results ensue. We will need to watch not only the immunizing results of vaccination but also the immunizing results of natural infections. There simply not enough data yet, according to Offit and Mina, even though some Pre-Covid perspectives seemed to suggest that immunity from natural infection is of quite long duration. Referring to SARS1 specifically.

        • “What you seem to be implying is that vaccinating EVERYONE is superior in results as compared to acquiring immunity from a natural infection?”

          Antibody levels for the two-shot mRNA vaccines are several times higher than the average level for those that have had a naturally acquired symptomatic case.

          This suggests that the level of immunity might be superior to that in the population of those who are naturally infected.

          But of course the big point is that we’ve reached perhaps 30% of the US being infected with a death toll of 500,000. To reach herd immunity through natural infection we’re easily looking at another 500,000 dead.

          The two mRNA vaccines are now known to be quite effective at blocking transmission, and near 100% effective at preventing hospitalization and death.

          Lives are worth preserving.

        • Greetings Dhogaza

          I would like to see the data/studies to which you refer. One of the claims since March has been that those who had been naturally infected with SARS2 did not also get their antibody levels checked. I believe Offit is among who lamented that omission.

          Suggesting that the level of immunity MIGHT be superior is not the same as stating that it is superior.

          I am skeptical of the claim that they block transmission as that was not addressed in the trials. Safety and efficacy were addressed. Effectiveness will take longer to assess. If you have data pointing to the last claim, I’d love to see them, provided that they are understandable.

          Let me repeat, I am not an anti-vaxxer. I as you do have to rely on stellar experts to facilitate my health.

        • Sameera –

          Here’s an article that discusses the differential examination of vaccinated to non-vaccinated in Israel, with dramatic results w/r/t severe infection and death.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-coronavirus-vaccine-research-studies/2021/02/28/3ba3c3f2-7526-11eb-9489-8f7dacd51e75_story.html

          The study is intersting to me because of the methodology for controlling for confounds.

          Sure, we don’t how the longevity of immunity compares. It might be shorter or longer, more or less robust. But so far the evidence seems promising. But waiting around for 70% or more of the public to get “natural ummunity” is a non-starter for me.

          Should younger people get vaccinated? Maybe not necessarily for their protection. But as a basic expectation for gaining soccietal benefits I’d say yes – as Meg discusses above.

          Re Scotland:

          https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n523

        • Sameera –

          Here’s an article that discusses the differential examination of vaccinated to non-vaccinated in Israel, with dramatic results w/r/t severe infection and death.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-coronavirus-vaccine-research-studies/2021/02/28/3ba3c3f2-7526-11eb-9489-8f7dacd51e75_story.html

          The study is interesting to me because of the methodology for controlling for confounds.

          Sure, we don’t how the longevity of immunity compares. It might be shorter or longer, more or less robust. But so far the evidence seems promising. But waiting around for 70% or more of the public to get “natural ummunity” is a non-starter for me.

          Should younger people get vaccinated? Maybe not necessarily for their protection. But as a basic expectation for gaining soccietal benefits I’d say yes – as Meg discusses above.

          Re Scotland: Google “BMJ Scotland Vaccine.”

        • Thanks for that You are reading more into my viewpoint. I have not made any claim that we should be ‘waiting for 70 % immunity.

          But I’ll take a search of the data and read the article this evening. It’s the data that I’m most interested in.

        • “But now experts have narrowed the claim to suggest that vaccination keeps you out of the hospital and prevents death.”

          This is simply not true. As Joshua mentions, field studies in Israel and by the Mayo Clinic show that after two doses the mRNA vaccines are about 89% effective in preventing detectable infections.

          Far earlier than that, nose swab data from Moderna’s Phase I/II data suggested at least a 60% reduction.

          “We know that most of the infected DO recover in any case, without needing to go to the hospital. There is a steep age gradient for hospitalizations and deaths.”

          Any way you slice it or dice it, the 100% avoidance of death in the trial population beats a CFR of 2-3% every day of the week. Of course, as millions are vaccinated and exposed, a few will contract fatal cases, but so far field data show that it is very rare so far.

          Five people in my extended social circle have died of covid, the youngest at age 24. People who trivialize the fact that if these five had been vaccinated that they would almost certainly be alive annoy me.

        • “People who trivialize the fact that if these five had been vaccinated that they would almost certainly be alive annoy me.”

          Annoy? You are too kind.

        • “And this herd immunity estimate is a hopeful sign if correct.”

          Yeah, if 30% of the population is already immune then we can reach natural herd immunity with another 650,000 deaths or so.

          Or we could vaccinate with the number of people who are vaccinated and contracting covid 19 and dying being in the low thousands …

          I just don’t get anti-vaxxers.

        • Don,

          The 30 % figure came from Paul Offit and former CDC Director Redfield. We are gonna reach herd immunity one way or the other unless a variant escapes vaccine and natural infection immunity.

          Offit and Redfield are not anti-vaxxers either.

        • Of course Offit is not an anti-vaxxer, it was you I was referring to. Sorry, you probably prefer the term “vaccine skeptic”.

          Offit sits on the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) to the FDA, and is enthusiastic about the two mRNA vaccines.

          The fact that it has taken 500,000 deaths (and an unknown but large number of people with long-term problems) to get to less than 50% of the level of natural herd immunity is actually depressing, not something to express optimism about.

          I just don’t get how you can look optimistically at those numbers.

          The death toll is already far higher than those who were touting the natural herd immunity strategy last spring promised us would result. And we’re not even 1/2 way there yet. Sheesh.

        • We are going to achieve herd immunity with the combination of natural infection and vaccines, provided that the variants so dominate as to evade vaccine or natural infection immunity. So far that has not been the case, according to Offit. Nevertheless, if you listen to Offit carefully, you will find that he expressed a great deal more caution than you are suggesting.

          I think that ‘skepticism’ is not irrational. It has value as histories of medicine have illustrated. Do access Michael Mina’s and Paul Offit’s podcasts.

        • “Nevertheless, if you listen to Offit carefully, you will find that he expressed a great deal more caution than you are suggesting.”

          There’s a huge difference between accepting that there will be additional covid cases as we work our way towards vaccinating a majority of the population vs. endorsing naturally acquired herd immunity as you appear to do.

          Of course Offit and others are cautious. We’re sitting at 70,000 confirmed new cases and around 2,000 deaths a day at the moment, and states are loosening restrictions and the more infectious UK variant is rapidly increasing its share of new infections.

          But no one reasonable is embracing naturally acquired immunity as a strategy, least of all Paul Offit.

          Ideally we’d be driving down new cases by continuing mitigation strategies that work, rather than loosen them up, while we continue the drive to vaccinate as many people as possible.

        • Nevertheless, if you listen to Offit carefully, you will find that he expressed a great deal more caution than you are suggesting.”

          There’s a huge difference between accepting that there will be additional covid cases as we work our way towards vaccinating a majority of the population vs. endorsing naturally acquired herd immunity as you appear to do.
          ——————

          You are simply taking a pot shot right now by assigning a label to me. That’s ok. I can take it.

          I strongly suggest that you listen to Paul Offit.

          The call of vaccination is prioritized for the most vulnerable: elderly and immune compromised primarily. They have had to be hospitalized and have died. I endorse vaccination for them.

          I am less sure that younger populations have to be vaccinated given that there are diverse perspectives about vaccinating young people.

          I may have had COVID19 already back in February. But did not get a test since there was no test. I’ve been around at least 10 individuals who had COVID.

        • Sameera –

          > The call of vaccination is prioritized for the most vulnerable: elderly and immune compromised primarily. They have had to be hospitalized and have died. I endorse vaccination for them.

          >>I am less sure that younger populations have to be vaccinated given that there are diverse perspectives about vaccinating young people.

          The spread to older people, who are most likely to get severely ill and die, is driven primarily by the higher rate of infection among younger people. The notion that you can have high prevalence of infection among the young and protect the more vulnerable has always seemed highly implausible to me.

          So when you say you endorse vaccinatuon for older and more vulnerable people, particularly in this polarized context, there is likely to be an implied sense that you’re advocating against vaccination for younger people. This especially true when you reference people like the GBD crowd and that British guy whose name escapes me at the moment, the former pharma guy who was likewise totally wrong about the trajectory of the pandemic in the UK.

          I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying that you’re less sure that younger people “have to be vaccinated” but you should certainly know that in saying so, you are effectively saying that it may be OK with you if more older people die than would otherwise happen with a higher vaccination rate among younger people.

        • “I am less sure that younger populations have to be vaccinated given that there are diverse perspectives about vaccinating young people.”

          Offit has said that we should’ve prioritized older people above all and cites examples like young workers in hospitals who never see patients and likely never any frontline worker as being wrong-headed.

          Not much to criticize there.

          But when he speaks of prioritization he is not suggesting that young people should not be vaccinated.

          He’s well aware that the larger the pool of infected people, the higher the rate of mutations, and the higher the probability that one that is going to have very serious public health implications will become established.

        • > He’s well aware that the larger the pool of infected people, the higher the rate of mutations, and the higher the probability that one that is going to have very serious public health implications will become established.

          Yup. That too. Which is why the whole “let it rip” among younger people is a bad idea, and an indication of why overtly politically motivated activists like the GBD crowd should be more explicit about their political motivations.

        • Joshua

          The spread to older people, who are most likely to get severely ill and die, is driven primarily by the higher rate of infection among younger people. The notion that you can have high prevalence of infection among the young and protect the more vulnerable has always seemed highly implausible to me.
          —————
          I was addressing more directly, the vaccination prioritization scheme that has been formulated & carried forward by the federal government and states due to the limited supply of vaccines and vaccine distribution hubs. This was not my scheme. It is the scheme that the Biden administration has had to endorse. I don’t think anyone was expecting delays in vaccine production and delivery. And so CDC issued guidelines as to who would be vaccinated 1st. The elderly and immune compromised are the most vulnerable. This has been stated and restated by medical experts.

          The herd immunity rate was not deliberatively pursued. It is the consequence of not having been sufficiently prepared for the pandemic.

          I preferred under these circumstances to distribute at home free rapid antigen tests to reduce substantially the death rate; why I support Dr. Michael Mina’s COVID19 strategy. I don’t see a way out of this without the mass production of these rapid tests to supplement vaccination. It is not likely that the entire world population can be vaccinated within the next few months either. So deaths will occur. But the hospitalization and death rates have been dropping too. And is good news.

          And, lastly, I spend a great deal of my spare time supporting Dr. Michael Mina’s efforts. Plus, I am chair of an education task force that is weighing in on school re-opening schools safely. We want the teachers, parent, and students to be safe.

    • With 60+ Million doses of mRNA vaccines given already and no large spike in deaths (quite the opposite), I think the fear over Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) that Anoneuoid has constantly mentioned is pretty clearly not an issue at the moment

      How so? It is not something that happens immediately after the injection…

      Unless you are exceptionally frail it is going to take time for antibodies to wane and then you still need to be reexposed.

      So there is still not sufficient data on this. They also don’t seem to be monitoring the nursing home deaths carefully (where the problem will show up first) after vaccination since I know someone who died a few weeks later with symptoms of covid that went uninvestigated. So we will need to look at all cause mortality.

      • If the concern is ADE from the first dose not doing a good job, then we’ve got the answer, that is not happening. If the issue is waning antibodies over time, then we have the answer to that too, the people in the studies in the summer are not experiencing severe COVID in the fall/winter boom.

        if the issue is ADE after 9 months or something, then this is a question we can only answer by waiting, and waiting an additional 9 months of study time before continuing would undoubtedly kill another 500,000 people so it’s clearly not warranted.

        Do we need booster shots in the fall, or next spring? Hey, could be. Probably we’ll need them anyway due to variants. But the solution is certainly not to wait a long time to see how antibodies wane.

        • If the concern is ADE from the first dose not doing a good job, then we’ve got the answer, that is not happening.

          The main concern early on is the suppressed immune system as reported for the Pfizer vaccine:

          Healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age or 65 to 85 years of age were eligible for inclusion.
          […]
          The largest changes from baseline in laboratory values were transient decreases in lymphocyte counts, which resolved within 1 week after vaccination (Fig. S3) and which were not associated with clinical manifestations.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7583697/

          This also may have shown up in the clinical trial:

          As specified in the protocol, suspected cases of symptomatic COVID-19 that were not PCR-
          confirmed were not recorded as adverse events unless they met regulatory criteria for
          seriousness. Two serious cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 were reported, both in
          the vaccine group, and narratives were reviewed. In one case, a 36-year-old male with no
          medical comorbidities experienced fever, malaise, nausea, headache and myalgias beginning
          on the day of Dose 2 and was hospitalized 3 days later for further evaluation of apparent
          infiltrates on chest radiograph and treatment of dehydration. A nasopharyngeal PCR test for
          SARS-CoV-2 was negative on the day of admission, and a chest CT was reported as normal.
          The participant was discharged from the hospital 2 days after admission. With chest imaging
          findings that are difficult to reconcile, it is possible that this event represented reactogenicity
          following the second vaccination, a COVID-19 case with false negative test that occurred less
          than 7 days after completion of the vaccination series, or an unrelated infectious process. In the
          other case, a 66-year-old male with no medical comorbidities experienced fever, myalgias, and
          shortness of breath beginning 28 days post-Dose 2 and was hospitalized one day later with
          abnormal chest CT showing a small left-sided consolidation. He was discharged from the
          hospital 2 days later, and multiple nasopharyngeal PCR tests collected over a 10-day period
          beginning 2 days after symptom onset were negative. It is possible, though highly unlikely, that
          this event represents a COVID-19 case with multiple false negative tests that occurred more
          than 7 days after completion of the vaccination regimen, and more likely that it represents an
          unrelated infectious process.

          Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study
          population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group. Suspected
          COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine
          group vs. 287 in the placebo group. It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19
          cases occurring in the 7 days postvaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms
          that overlap with those of COVID-19.           Overall though, these data do not raise a concern that
          protocol-specified reporting of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked
          clinically significant adverse events that would not have otherwise been detected.

          https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

          This study also reported a 36% *increase* in hospitalizations after vaccination in the 18-64 year old group for days 7-13. They don’t report days 1-7 at all and do not mention this datapoint in the text:
          https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/scotland_firstvaccinedata_preprint.pdf

          So what happens the first week in general, not just due to covid is important info. It has been really hard to get info on what all cause mortality, hospitalization rates, etc is in that first week after vaccination.

          I did look at the UK nursing home data and found that the deaths closely followed the rate of vaccination:
          https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-vaccinations/
          https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/numberofdeathsincarehomesnotifiedtothecarequalitycommissionengland

          I plotted it here (nursing home specific vaccine data was only reported starting Jan 31st, so I used over 80 years old as a proxy): https://i.ibb.co/DzYqTNh/covid-uk.png

          It would be really useful to know how many of these deaths were in the recently vaccinated, because those curves match up very closely. They must have the data available so where is it? It could even be that none of the deaths are in the recently vaccinated…

          Another thing is it takes a week or two for the vaccine to offer any protection. So besides the suppressed immune system there may also be an ADE effect during that time, since the immune response has not fully matured.

        • Here is a new paper out today, reporting up to a 1.5x increase in UK covid cases during the first two weeks after vaccination:

          The odds of testing positive by interval after vaccination for BNT162b2 compared to those unvaccinated was initially analysed for the full period since the roll-out of the BNT162b2 vaccination programme on 8th December 2020 (supplementary table 2, supplementary figure 2). During the first few days after vaccination (before an immune response would be anticipated), vaccinated individuals had a higher odds of testing positive, suggesting that vaccination was being targeted at those at higher risk of disease.

          […]

          The odds of testing positive among vaccinated individuals increased during the early period up to days 7-9, reaching 1.48 (95%CI 1.23-1.77). The odds ratios then began to decrease from 10-13 days after vaccination, reaching 0.41 (95% CI 0.32-0.54) in the 28-34 day and remaining at a similar level from 35 days onwards.

          https://khub.net/documents/135939561/430986542/Early+effectiveness+of+COVID+vaccines.pdf/ffd7161c-b255-8e88-c2dc-88979fc2cc1b?t=1614617945615

          They fail to mention the reported immune suppression during the first week…

        • If the issue is waning antibodies over time, then we have the answer to that too, the people in the studies in the summer are not experiencing severe COVID in the fall/winter boom.

          It is being reported, more and more frequently as antibodies wane and variants spread:

          This study reports 33 cases with recurrent COVID-19 episodes following recovery and confirmed by positive qRT-PCR in each of the first and second episodes. Recurrences tend to be more severe than the first episode, one individual dying.

          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33589297/

          Five residents of a skilled nursing facility received positive SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test results in two separate COVID-19 outbreaks separated by 3 months. Residents received at least four negative test results between the two outbreaks, suggesting the possibility of reinfection. Severity of disease in the five residents during the second outbreak was worse than that during the first outbreak and included one death.

          […]

          The finding that all five patients with recurrent COVID-19 had either asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic courses during their first infections is noteworthy, suggesting the possibility that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic initial infections do not produce a sufficiently robust immune response to prevent reinfection (5).

          https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7008a3.htm

          Here we describe a case of re-infection in an individual from South India characterized by whole genome sequencing of the virus isolated from both episodes. Analysis shows the presence of an immune escape variant N440K in the Spike protein in both episodes of infection. Incidentally, this variant was also found in a case of reinfection previously reported by us in a healthcare worker from North India ​[1]​.

          In the first episode of infection, the 47-year-old male public service employee from Andhra Pradesh, India, was identified to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 on July 25, 2020, in nasopharyngeal specimens analysed as a part of routine surveillance and was asymptomatic. The cycle threshold values (ct) was 22.3 and 19.1 for ORF1ab and N genes respectively (Labsystems Diagnostic Inc.). The individual tested negative on August 2, 2020, and tested positive again on September 10, 2020, during routine surveillance, but during this episode, he was symptomatic with fever, cough and malaise.

          https://osf.io/7gk69/

        • “The finding that all five patients with recurrent COVID-19 had either asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic courses during their first infections is noteworthy, suggesting the possibility that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic initial infections do not produce a sufficiently robust immune response to prevent reinfection (5).”

          Fortunately the two-dose mRNA regimes generate far higher levels of antibodies than seen in typical symptomatic individuals.

          The number of reinfections of people who have already had covid 19 remains very low.

          And among those that do, you yourself do comment that:

          “It is being reported, more and more frequently as antibodies wane and variants spread”

          Yes, as variants spread that are capable of partially escaping the neutralizing antibodies. Reinfection is still rare, though, and the J&J vaccine still shows reasonable efficacy against the most concerning strain that’s widely spread (the South African variant). The mRNA vaccines will be, too.

          What are you going to do when variants arrive that are capable of dodging your magic vitamin D bullets?

        • Fortunately the two-dose mRNA regimes generate far higher levels of antibodies than seen in typical symptomatic individuals.

          Can you provide a source so we can see exactly what you are referring to?

        • @Daniel, yes I am aware of that. But that number should depend on the time since infection and the target of the antibodies. You can’t just use one number.

          Eg, there will be zero anti-nucleocapsid after vaccination with these vaccines since they only encode the spike protein. And I have yet to see post-vaccination anti-S2 results anywhere. This region was mutated to stabilize most of the vaccines:

          This vaccine encodes a stabilized version of the SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike glycoprotein trimer, S-2P, which has been modified to include two proline substitutions at the top of the central helix in the S2 subunit.

          https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2028436

          Those are also neutralizing, but wane slowest and are expected to be more robust towards variants:

          The analysis included antibodies against the receptor-binding domain (RBD) and
          S2 subunit of the S protein, both associated with potential neutralizing activity; and the
          nucleoprotein (NP), which are very abundant, albeit unable to neutralize the SARS-CoV-
          2 directly 14 . The longitudinal analysis revealed a one-phase significant (p<0.0001) steady
          decay pattern of the three tested antibodies, which was notably faster in IgG anti-NP (Fig.
          3a-c). The half-life of anti-RBD, anti-S2, and anti-NP antibodies for the period beyond
          day 30 were 86, 108, and 59 days, respectively. These values were consistent with those
          reported by Wheatley et al., estimated on a 160-day time frame4 . Although the limited
          sample size of this sub-analysis precluded independent modeling of the decay in
          mild/asymptomatic and hospitalized patients, the latter showed significantly higher titers
          of anti-S2 at the end of the follow-up period (Figure S2), whereas no significant
          differences were found in other antibodies regarding disease status.

          https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.22.389056v2

          Coronavirus spikes consist of two subunits, S1 and S2, and it is well known that S2 is
          relatively conserved whereas S1 is more rapidly evolving (Liò and Goldman, 2004; Tortorici and
          Veesler, 2019). The S1 subunit itself consists of several domains, and we were inspired by
          several excellent papers by Rini and colleagues to pursue the hypothesis that 229E’s antigenic
          drift might be driven by amino-acid substitutions within the three loops in the S1 RBD that bind
          the receptor (Li et al., 2019; Wong et al., 2017).

          We first calculated the protein sequence variability at each residue across an alignment
          of 229E spikes isolated between 1984 and 2019 (Figure 4A). As expected, most sequence
          variability was in the S1 subunit, with particularly high variability in the three receptor-binding
          loops within the RBD (Figure 4A). However, there was also substantial variability within some
          portions of the N-terminal domain (NTD) as well as other parts of the S1 subunit.

          https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.17.423313v1.full

        • Anoneuoid:

          I’m fine with the statement: “we don’t know how long the effective immunity from the mRNA vaccines will last” but it’s very clear that say 7 days after vaccination with the second dose, people have robust immunity for some amount of time, and it’s also clear that this amount of time is at least as long but probably longer than immunity from natural infection. Furthermore there is preliminary indication that even after just the first dose there is a very good immunity:

          https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/uk-study-finds-one-dose-of-pfizerbiontech-vaccine-reduces-risk-of-infection-by-72-25/ar-BB1dUr38

          There is also evidence now that some number of days after 1 dose of Pfizer’s vaccine people who have previously been infected with Sars-cov-2 have robust immunity

          https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210202/Previous-SARS-CoV-2-infection-may-negate-need-for-two-vaccine-doses.aspx

          So as far as I can tell the only valid form of your concern is “at some point in the future, people may not be well protected anymore” which is true of all vaccines, and then furthermore we could go to: “at some point in the future not only are people not well protected, but they may experience worse symptoms if they do get infected than if they hadn’t had the vaccine” which is also not surprising.

          The question is whether this “at some point in the future” is like 5 months out, 1 year, 5 years, or maybe 15 years?

          If we just assume that over the next year we need to monitor the vaccine and patients who get COVID, and make decisions about a booster vaccine at some time in the future, then I think the public health world is already doing that and already plans to run those studies.

          The question is just whether we should wait for those studies to widely disseminate the vaccine, and the answer is VERY CLEARLY NO.

        • So as far as I can tell the only valid form of your concern is “at some point in the future, people may not be well protected anymore” which is true of all vaccines, and then furthermore we could go to: “at some point in the future not only are people not well protected, but they may experience worse symptoms if they do get infected than if they hadn’t had the vaccine” which is also not surprising.

          My main concern about ADE and these vaccines has always been that the vaccines are directed at the area most likely to lead to problems when there are weak antibodies. People who are infected with live virus have diverse immunity to multiple parts of the virus.

          Diversity is better than monoculture at preventing the incubation of new problematic variants and later more severe (re-)infection.

          Two other concerns are mentioned elsewhere in the thread (immune suppression soon after vaccination and triggering anti-PEG antibodies). Both are still obvious and being ignored.

          Another was waiting rather than letting the majority low risk population get immune as quick as possible. Enough people immune at the same time could stop the spread as quickly as possible. Then we were more likely to avoid new strains and a giant wealth transfer to the large corporations due to lockdowns. But that one is moot now.

        • Then we were more likely to avoid new strains and a giant wealth transfer to the large corporations due to lockdowns.

          And limit the death and suffering of course.

        • “If we just assume that over the next year we need to monitor the vaccine and patients who get COVID, and make decisions about a booster vaccine at some time in the future, then I think the public health world is already doing that and already plans to run those studies.”

          Note that the EUAs were granted based on interim results of the Phase III trials.

          In other words, they are continuing, and that’s exactly the kind of things they are looking at. Along with safety issues (including the pet ADE topic).

          And of course we’re generating tons of field data by vaccinating hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

        • In other words, they are continuing, and that’s exactly the kind of things they are looking at. Along with safety issues (including the pet ADE topic).

          And of course we’re generating tons of field data by vaccinating hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

          Yep. Just like windows 10, outsource quality control to the captive users by doing it after the release.

        • Since you like evidence-based discussions, you really oughta stop making pronouncements on something that you have no evidence to assess: what other people are and aren’t “ignoring.” I’ve called you on this before.

          Please provide any published discussion of the early immune suppression since that early Pfizer paper that explains the constant 40% increase in problems during that period since seen in three separate studies now.

          Just share some evidence. Can you do it?

          The answer is no.

        • > Please provide any published discussion of the early immune suppression

          I see. So any topic which you point to, and on which I can’t produce published discussions, is a topic that’s being “ignored?” How about the moon being made of green cheese? I guess that’s being “ignored’ also?

          Interesting logic.

          To claim that people are “ignoring” something, you need to prove that they are intentionally disregarding it – meaning that you know that (1) they are aware of the topic and (2) don’t just think it’s not particularly meaningful for one reason or another but think it’s significant and choose to disregard it.

          The point being you can’t get into other people’s heads to know what’s going on there. If you want to raise an issue and say it’s something that you think is important to address is fine. But what you’re doing, on a regular basis I might at, is making conclusions for which you don’t have sufficient evidence.

        • Daniel –

          > …popular news coverage has certainly emphasized much higher antibody levels in the vaccine

          Related:

          -snip-
          Health care workers with previous COVID-19 infection, based on laboratory-confirmed serology testing, had higher antibody titer responses to a single dose of mRNA vaccine than those who were not previously infected. Antibody titers started peaking at 7 days and achieved higher titers and neutralization in 14 days compared with Ab-negative volunteers. Limitations of the study are the small sample size, lack of demonstration of vaccine efficacy, and potential bias introduced by those enrolling not being representative of the larger original population. Given the ongoing worldwide vaccine shortages, the results inform suggestions for a single-dose vaccination strategy for those with prior COVID-19 or placing them lower on the vaccination priority list.6

          https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777171?guestAccessKey=4ef53dc2-11ca-4f74-8ad0-491b1af5b290&utm_source=silverchair&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=article_alert-jama&utm_content=olf&utm_term=030121

        • “Another was waiting rather than letting the majority low risk population get immune as quick as possible. Enough people immune at the same time could stop the spread as quickly as possible.”

          In other words intentionally kill people.

          I’ll take vaccination, thank you very much. Already had my first dose, can’t wait for the second.

        • Joshua said,
          “To claim that people are “ignoring” something, you need to prove that they are intentionally disregarding it”

          Huh? This is a much stronger interpretation of “ignoring” than I am used to. In my experience, “ignoring” is often just a matter of lack of interest or lack of caring — a kind of automatic scan-and-delete what doesn’t jump out at you as high priority in comparison with other matters.

        • In other words intentionally kill people.

          I’ll take vaccination, thank you very much. Already had my first dose, can’t wait for the second.

          How would knowing for sure you got exposed for sure then quarantining kill someone?

        • Martha –

          Of course there are different usages, but what I said is consistent with a common usage of “refuse to take notice of something…disregard intentionally” and “fail to consider (something significant)” which implies the person thinks it is significant.

          It’s also consistent with the kinds of accusations that Anoneuoid makes regularly, as he did earlier in this thread where he said that vaccine evaluators “failed to pay attention” to things that cause death because, that they “don’t like” it (when in fact there was much attention paid to ADE).

        • What is “he” going to do? Continue the good fight against the stupid and obdurate heathens of the academy, armed with a basement full of clippings and a computer terminal.

        • I am going to continue sharing useful information in an attempt to save lives, while you post snarky evidence- and data-free rants to stats blogs.

        • “I am going to continue sharing useful information in an attempt to save lives, while you post snarky evidence- and data-free rants to stats blogs.”

          Who needs data? All that is needed is the white heat of certitude and the data come into hand, supporting one’s hypotheses remarkably, wherever one reaches, like tendentious blackberries.

        • Anoneuoid –

          > Both are still obvious and being ignored.

          Since you like evidence-based discussions, you really oughta stop making pronouncements on something that you have no evidence to assess: what other people are and aren’t “ignoring.” I’ve called you on this before.

          > Another was waiting rather than letting the majority low risk population get immune as quick as possible. Enough people immune at the same time could stop the spread as quickly as possible. Then we were more likely to avoid new strains and a giant wealth transfer to the large corporations due to lockdowns. But that one is moot now.

          We have effectively allowed the low risk population to get infected along with with the high risk population – with the end result of a high number of deaths and what appears to be quite a few new strains. The idea that we’d have gotten fewer new strains with more spread needs some ‘splainin.

          >a giant wealth transfer to the large corporations due to lockdowns.

          Another statement for which you don’t have sufficient evidence. For all you know, there might have been a larger wealth transfer to large corporations absent NPIs. The problem is that you can’t disaggregate the effects of NPIs from the effects of pandemic. You see correlation and assume causation. You assume a counterfactual scenario and consider it as fact. Such thinking should be avoided.

          > And limit the death and suffering of course

          Another unproven counterfactual assumption dressed up as a fact. Best avoided.

        • Just repeating the misplaced post from above:

          Since you like evidence-based discussions, you really oughta stop making pronouncements on something that you have no evidence to assess: what other people are and aren’t “ignoring.” I’ve called you on this before.

          Please provide any published discussion of the early immune suppression since that early Pfizer paper that explains the constant 40% increase in problems during that period since seen in three separate studies now.

          Just share some evidence. Can you do it?

          The answer is no.

          We have effectively allowed the low risk population to get infected along with with the high risk population – with the end result of a high number of deaths and what appears to be quite a few new strains.

          Yep, no one listened to me. I have no blame here. This is all on the people giving bad advice.

        • Here is the original report:

          The main concern early on is the suppressed immune system as reported for the Pfizer vaccine:

          Healthy adults 18 to 55 years of age or 65 to 85 years of age were eligible for inclusion.
          […]
          The largest changes from baseline in laboratory values were transient decreases in lymphocyte counts, which resolved within 1 week after vaccination (Fig. S3) and which were not associated with clinical manifestations.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7583697/

          Here is what happened in the clinical trial:

          Suspected
          COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine
          group vs. 287 in the placebo group. It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19
          cases occurring in the 7 days postvaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms
          that overlap with those of COVID-19.

          Here is a paper that reports 36% increase in hospitalizations soon after the vaccine (which they do not acknowledge in the text):
          https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/scotland_firstvaccinedata_preprint.pdf

          Here is a new paper out today that reports 48% increase in infections:

          The odds of testing positive by interval after vaccination for BNT162b2 compared to those unvaccinated was initially analysed for the full period since the roll-out of the BNT162b2 vaccination programme on 8th December 2020 (supplementary table 2, supplementary figure 2). During the first few days after vaccination (before an immune response would be anticipated), vaccinated individuals had a higher odds of testing positive, suggesting that vaccination was being targeted at those at higher risk of disease.

          […]

          The odds of testing positive among vaccinated individuals increased during the early period up to days 7-9, reaching 1.48 (95%CI 1.23-1.77). The odds ratios then began to decrease from 10-13 days after vaccination, reaching 0.41 (95% CI 0.32-0.54) in the 28-34 day and remaining at a similar level from 35 days onwards.

          https://khub.net/documents/135939561/430986542/Early+effectiveness+of+COVID+vaccines.pdf/ffd7161c-b255-8e88-c2dc-88979fc2cc1b?t=1614617945615

          Can you provide any evidence that you find contrary to this phenomenon of more people getting sick within a week or so of getting vaccinated due to immune suppression? Or even anyone mentioning this possibility?

  13. Wait—posting snarky evidence- and data-free rants to stats blogs is a bad thing now?

    Lol. If about NHST… that has a long distinguished history of accomplishing nothing even if published in journals though. The greats were doing that before blogs were invented.

  14. I think the noise about anti-vax is exaggerated by media (or maybe caused by media and then positively fed back by media).

    In our local minority communities, there is a loud cry for vaccines and phone lines in some clinics are completely overwhelmed by them. They are more afraid of being left behind or getting second rate vaccines.

    Most of those vaccine surveys are biased, just like all the polls about Trump presidency. Somewhat cynically, those so called Trump supporters may get the vaccine at the first possible time, as I have noticed in our solid right leaning neighbors. For example, every day there may be a few leftover vaccines in some sites and they will be given to anybody in a first-come-first-serve basis. Many of my neighbors get the vaccine this way despite they are not in 1a,1b,1c or old aged.

    I think worrying about people refusing vaccines is much ado about nothing.

  15. >> think there has been a change in the media—they used to be more deferential to the authorities and less inclined to report news that might promote doubts

    And society in general. I read a book called “The Green Flame” about a 50s US government program to make boron-based jet fuels (which ended up costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and several lives due to accidents, and produced nothing – IIRC because unlike carbon dioxide from hydrocarbon fuels, boron oxides are solid, thus bad for jet engine turbines).

    One of the main points of the book was that at that time people in the US generally believed that the government was well-intentioned and basically competent; IIRC the author argued that the Vietnam War was what changed this.

Comments are closed.