Covid-19 Politics

[broncofan]

The newest monoclonal antibody treatment to get emergency use authorization for omicron by the fda is bebtelovimab. It is produced by Eli Lilly, which had a previous antibody treatment that was no longer effective against omicron. Regeneron also had an antibody treatment that was effective against previous variants but not omicron. My understanding is that glaxosmithkline also has an antibody treatment that is still effective against omicron called sotrovimab.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pres...vid-19-retains

https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lillys-bebtelovimab-receives-emergency-use-authorization

GSK Sotrovimab Fact Sheet for HCP 12222021 (fda.gov)

[Stavros]

This is a long but absorbing article in which Musa al-Gharbi tries to explain why people are 'vaccine hesitant' or outright opposed to vaccination, but sees not so much a medical, as a political reason for it, and one that can be explained by the lack of trust people have in politicians, and in the case of Covid, the scientists they have relied on. On the one hand there is the fact that many more people have been vaccinated than have not, but that over the course of the pandemic positions have changed, and mandates and vaccine passports generate hostility. I think it is a fair assessment. My only additional point would be that people who are opposed to Mandates and Vaccine Passports should know these are not permanent, but temporary requirements, and that they work to help reduce the spread of the virus.

I think it was first published in The Guardian but is reprinted via Yahoo

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/why-people...112524888.html

[broncofan]

The data from the trials have been published. Even if you're not an expert in statistics the numbers are pretty straightforward and you would have to believe dozens of people are concocting a fraud in order to disbelieve raw data comparing placebo with treatment arm.

Not believing that scientists are doctoring results from a clinical trial is not very much trust. It doesn't mean I blindly believe or accept every conclusion or opinion. It means I don't think there is a deliberate plot to give people a harmful vaccine and that dedicated medical professionals are lying about its efficacy.

Understanding why people would believe this is definitely something worth investigating because its effects are catastrophic. But I don't really think it removes culpability or blameworthiness from the people who subscribe to these views. I've said before I have a first cousin who is an antivaxxer and I think what she is doing to her family and neighbors by adopting these beliefs is unconscionable.

[fred41]

This is a long but absorbing article in which Musa al-Gharbi tries to explain why people are 'vaccine hesitant' or outright opposed to vaccination, but sees not so much a medical, as a political reason for it, and one that can be explained by the lack of trust people have in politicians, and in the case of Covid, the scientists they have relied on. On the one hand there is the fact that many more people have been vaccinated than have not, but that over the course of the pandemic positions have changed, and mandates and vaccine passports generate hostility. I think it is a fair assessment. My only additional point would be that people who are opposed to Mandates and Vaccine Passports should know these are not permanent, but temporary requirements, and that they work to help reduce the spread of the virus.

I think it was first published in The Guardian but is reprinted via Yahoo

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/why-people...112524888.html

Very good, well balanced article from Musa al-Gharbi trying to explain it all. Thanks for posting this Stavros. His upcoming book , as mentioned at the end of the article, may well be an excellent read also.

[Stavros]

The data from the trials have been published. Even if you're not an expert in statistics the numbers are pretty straightforward and you would have to believe dozens of people are concocting a fraud in order to disbelieve raw data comparing placebo with treatment arm.

Not believing that scientists are doctoring results from a clinical trial is not very much trust. It doesn't mean I blindly believe or accept every conclusion or opinion. It means I don't think there is a deliberate plot to give people a harmful vaccine and that dedicated medical professionals are lying about its efficacy.

Understanding why people would believe this is definitely something worth investigating because its effects are catastrophic. But I don't really think it removes culpability or blameworthiness from the people who subscribe to these views. I've said before I have a first cousin who is an antivaxxer and I think what she is doing to her family and neighbors by adopting these beliefs is unconscionable.

Your post is an example of a moral argument shaped by reason, where the contrast is between Emotion and Reason, or as Hobbes put it, between a State of Nature and a State of Government. One could also frame it has the contrast between Faith and Science. It begs the question which to some extent is answered in the link I offered above, what do people want who are so opposed to vaccination?

There seems to be no science in their argument, but an emotional reaction to a diemma oft discussed in politics -does a Liberal Democracy prefer to give the Citizen freedom to do, or freedom from? Hobbes would argue the State takes away part of your freedom in return for security -the citizen should know freedom from fear, of which the fear of death is absolute. It seems those who believe they should have freedom to do, to make their own choices, are willing to leave life or death to chance rather than to the State, even when it has laws, and in some cases a writte Constitution.

Moreover, is it not ironic, that in a State like Texas, where Greg Abbott appears to prefer the Bible to the Constitution, decisions shaped by Faith have bad outcomes politically- that using religious faith as the basis of political decision making is little different from what happens in Pakistan, or Iran or Afghanistan? The same man who declares a 'heartbeat' proof of life that must not be terminated, has no moral anguish in terminating the lives of men on death row, even though it is as clear a violation of the Gospels as can be found.

Thus to me, a politics shaped by emotion, by fear, by resentment, is a form of anarchy, because it resists and opposes rational decision making. It is fundamental to human behaviour, but is not its only form, and maybe in the US, it is the cause of the 'anti-Fed' ideology at the root of 'anti-vaxx' protest. An appeal to reason, or science, thus falls on deaf ears, because the exchange of views is shaped by contradictions -we cannot understand their rejection of reason, they cannot understand our rejection of their feelings.

Trust thus lies at the intersection of our dilemma, just as in the UK, Boris Johnson has lost the trust of many through his cavalier attitude to laws and regulations he told us to obey. And if trust is truly broken, does it matter who replaces Johnson, or Biden, or Trump? We live in interesting, but dangerous times.

[Stavros]

Very good, well balanced article from Musa al-Gharbi trying to explain it all. Thanks for posting this Stavros. His upcoming book , as mentioned at the end of the article, may well be an excellent read also.

Thanks for the endorsement Fred. Hope all is well with you and the Big Apple!

[broncofan]

This is a long but absorbing article in which Musa al-Gharbi tries to explain why people are 'vaccine hesitant' or outright opposed to vaccination, but sees not so much a medical, as a political reason for it, and one that can be explained by the lack of trust people have in politicians, and in the case of Covid, the scientists they have relied on. On the one hand there is the fact that many more people have been vaccinated than have not, but that over the course of the pandemic positions have changed, and mandates and vaccine passports generate hostility. I think it is a fair assessment. My only additional point would be that people who are opposed to Mandates and Vaccine Passports should know these are not permanent, but temporary requirements, and that they work to help reduce the spread of the virus.

I think it was first published in The Guardian but is reprinted via Yahoo

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/why-people...112524888.html

I disagree with a large portion of the article. There's simply no way that a large number of experts could have the same view about every aspect of the pandemic across time, even when the situation is constantly changing. It basically uses the existence of uncertainty in a dynamic situation as an excuse for cherry-picking those facts convenient to the conspiracy narrative and ignoring everything else.

But who is responsible for compiling and collating every stupid statement and presenting them in isolation in order to undermine confidence in vaccines? If you want to discredit the politician who made the statement then fine. But why attempt to pitch ivermectin or undermine public health protocols?

Who is responsible for using the fact that what is known changes over time to undermine conclusions that were drawn at an earlier time?

Initially the rationale for getting the vaccine is that it was effective against all endpoints studied, from infection, to severe disease, to death. It was stated very clearly by most health professionals that the duration of effectiveness was unknown. It was discussed immediately that boosters might be needed at some point and the only way to find out was to wait. There was also concern about whether the vaccines would be effective if there were new variants.

The mask guidance was inherently tricky because it wasn't known initially whether the virus spread before the onset of symptoms. Once it became clear that the virus spread before onset of symptoms the guidance was that masks could be helpful. It's very difficult to study the real world effectiveness of masks because it's difficult to find a control.

Several bullet points are simply wrong. He says initially people were told one shot might be enough. Both Moderna and Pfizer were tested with two shots and were never approved for use with one shot. It was only when delta emerged that it looked like boosters might be a good idea.

He then points out that 12,000 people died shortly after their shots and that this isn't a miniscule number. Nobody is claiming it's a miniscule number. The question is whether the shots caused people's deaths as 12,000 is small relative to the number of people who have been vaccinated. If the shots caused people's deaths how did they do so? Was it an immunological response? It could not have been the result of infection from the vaccine so what occurred etc.

It really seems to me akin to someone blaming the reporting of the wtc attacks for people making bullshit documentaries like loose change. You can't prevent anomalies, or uncertainty, or dumb statements that can be seized on as convenient by these folks...

[fred41]

Thanks for the endorsement Fred. Hope all is well with you and the Big Apple!

I am well thank you….the Big Apple - well, we will have to wait and see. If I had small children I would’ve either moved to the suburbs, small town or perhaps a different State, but we have a new Mayor and I am somewhat hopeful that he will create a better environment in NYC. I could elaborate further…but this is the Covid thread so I’ll leave it at that.

I’m fully vaxxed and boostered and will continue with the recommended regimen. For myself, this is the most logical course of action on all fronts. I’m not overweight, don’t smoke nor have any immune compromises at the moment, but I’ll be 60 in a few months - in one of the densest cities in the U.S…where vaccination rates are high…but fully aware that they’ll never be at 100%. Also, I enjoy going to restaurants, pubs, gyms and shows, none of which can be comfortably traversed without some medical protection…especially when ones decision making process is often hindered by ones own vices…and probably - ones own stupidity..lol.

It seemed like almost everyone in NYC had Omicron during the Christmas holidays, but most of my friends and relatives are vaccinated so that , for those who were infected, the symptoms were either mild (much like a cold) or non existent. I had either the flu or Omicron - I’ll never know for sure, because the only test I could get at the time was a PCR test which results were deemed invalid…two Rapid tests I was able to procure much later came back negative. At present, you can get either test for free all over the city (there’s one up the block from my address).

I hope you and everyone here remains healthy. I often continue to read some of the threads, but just don’t have the desire or personal drive to post.

Be well.

[fred41]

Bronco, I believe you are looking at the article from a wrong perspective. You are a college educated man with a clearly higher-than average IQ , who is a single white collar employee who has the time and intellectual acuity to read, digest and debate all the medical and political news available to him. That is simply not true of a segment of our population. Many don’t have the intellect, education or work one or multiple blue collar jobs and most likely get their news from soundbites….that’s why what a leading politician says or does is so important. Mistakes can often be understandably forgiven, but insincerity by word or (perhaps more important) deed will always leave its mark. As the article points out - Many times , Science…at least ‘seems’ to, sometimes take a back seat to political concerns…by both elected representatives ..and medical staff. This will erode trust in people, especially if they are inherently suspicious to begin with. I don’t believe any of that is a justifiable excuse…but an attempt at explanation. To me, one or two of the author’s points can be debated on technicality…at least as memory may serve., but overall I think he gives a good attempt at explanation

[broncofan]

Bronco, I believe you are looking at the article from a wrong perspective. You are a college educated man with a clearly higher-than average IQ , who is a single white collar employee who has the time and intellectual acuity to read, digest and debate all the medical and political news available to him. That is simply not true of a segment of our population. Many don’t have the intellect, education or work one or multiple blue collar jobs and most likely get their news from soundbites….that’s why what a leading politician says or does is so important. Mistakes can often be understandably forgiven, but insincerity by word or (perhaps more important) deed will always leave its mark. As the article points out - Many times , Science…at least ‘seems’ to, sometimes take a back seat to political concerns…by both elected representatives ..and medical staff. This will erode trust in people, especially if they are inherently suspicious to begin with. I don’t believe any of that is a justifiable excuse…but an attempt at explanation.

This is very succinctly put and I should have said I agree with a lot of the bullet points in the article too. I know nobody's keeping tabs on my positions but I thought the statement by some Democrats about a "Trump vaccine" was stupid because the decision was never going to be his and the data was always going to be published. It is a very good example of playing politics with science. If the vaccine is approved with insufficient data because of political pressure say so but telling people you'll always be skeptical of a vaccine released under a Trump Administration is dangerous and crazy.

In one of my posts I blame the average person, including my cousin who is actually a sweet person (I contradict myself). But I actually feel there is a kind of cottage industry of people with a weird semi-lucid mental state who are taking advantage of other people. They kind of believe the things they say but also are aware they're being shifty.

A woman who works for my brother lost her unvaccinated brother to covid and her sister in law and still won't get vaccinated. I find something about that level of delusion threatening. I sometimes have trouble believing that kind of willful blindness can be a product of innocent naivete but maybe it is sometimes.

In honesty, could you imagine thousands of health professionals and politicians navigating this crisis without someone providing fodder at some point? We know health precautions are inconvenient so at some point there was going to be a movement to resist them.

There's a lot of blame to go around. Someone who is dishonest can weaken people's trust but I think there's also been many attempts to amplify these mistakes in a willful way.