https://twitter.com/BenjaminMMeier/s...85570122584064
How can anyone think that people doing this are on the right side of history? I recall reading it was conservative student groups promoting this idiocy.
Printable View
https://twitter.com/BenjaminMMeier/s...85570122584064
How can anyone think that people doing this are on the right side of history? I recall reading it was conservative student groups promoting this idiocy.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance and doublespeak going on here. Vaccination sceptics complain about big pharma being in league with government to push vaccination for financial gain, yet in other contexts the same people have no problem with corporations making profits - indeed, they back policies that make the rich richer. They also normally support gutting regulation to stop corporates engaging in practices that actually harm people. If Trump had won the election I'm sure most of these people would now be touting the vaccination program as a great success.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I think what is happening can be seen as a combination of mass psychology with the behavioural incentives that operate within right-wing circles. People are adopting positions as a badge of tribal affinity rooted in 'us versus them' psychology. Any mainstream criticism, censorship of misinformation or talk of things like vaccination passes allows them to adopt the mantle of persecuted victim. The incentives for right-wing politicians and commentators are to feed this process rather than resisting, creating a feedback loop. The Republican Party has chosen to double down on appealing to existing supporters and rely on electoral manipulation to win, rather than trying to broaden its appeal. Fox News seems to have made a similar decision.
An additional point I coulld have made re Murdoch and the libertarians, is that they have a vested interest in demeaning the institutions of government, to strengthen their case for Markets, so that Trump was (not literally), a 'godsend' as he has demeaned the Office of the Presidency, just as they argue the Democrats in Congress have turned it into a partisan vehicle -in fact, although they want Markets to Rule, you have exposed the weakness of this Utopian belief, for a pandemic is not by definition local, but requires national action, though on this occasion 'every State for itself' has made a co-ordinated response to Covid across the US impossible- incidentally, it has also exposed the failure in the UK to do the same, indeed, what has dismayed me is the lack of co-ordinated respond nationally and Globally, and has in my view contributed to the expansion rather than the contraction of the virus.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I thought we learned lessons from the plagues of the past, from co-ordinated campaigns against Smallpox, Polio, Measles and TB, but a generation of politicians with an ideology as fixed and impervious to reason as Marxism-Leninism or Marxism-Leninism-Maoist Thought has decided to oppose the very measures that would help control and even end this viral attack on all of us. In the same States where a 'Mask Mandate' is the 'Mark of the Beast' or a violation of a person's bodily freedom, a woman becoming pregnant after being gang-raped by 10 men has no right to control her body. Where is her freedom?
But if what were once extreme ideas on the fringe are now occupying the centre ground, is it because the centre shifted because of the incompetence of former Democrats and Republicans, that voters became so disenchanted with Bush and Obama they needed to 'shake things up' a little or a lot -or is it that in the US, elections cn be rigged through gerrymandering of district boundaries so that in fact, policy is now made by minority administrations?
Most Americans believe in and abide by science based rules, but it only needs 30% to disengage to perpetuate the pandemic -and where do these 30% live? And where are the worst cases currently recorded?
This passage in the Newsweek article is a serious misunderstanding or misrepresentation:
"But even while the experts push the vaccine, they have undermined it by arguing that vaccinated individuals spread the virus as effectively as unvaccinated individuals. It begs the question: If everyone now has to wear a mask because everyone is now back to being suspected asymptomatic carriers, why get the vaccine at all?
The personal risk/benefit analysis still plays a role and preventing serious illness is definitely important, but getting the vaccine to protect others (and calling unvaccinated adults selfish) no longer seems to be relevant if the vaccinated can spread it, too. In fact, some experts have advised only individuals at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19 to get vaccinated, in order to prevent the evolution of even more vaccine resistant variants."
The article she linked actually says:
"scientists who studied a big COVID-19 outbreak in Massachusetts concluded that vaccinated people who got so-called breakthrough infections carried about the same amount of the coronavirus as those who did not get the shots."
This is a conditional statement. It is not saying the vaccinated are equally likely to be infected.
In fact, what the experts are saying is that vaccines do significantly reduce the likelihood of infection but there is a significant incidence of breakthrough infections (hence the continued need for masks). This is consistent with data showing that recent cases are disproportionally occurring in states with lower vaccination rates.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ed-people.html
Even if vaccines were only 60% effective in preventing infection that is still a huge deal because the virus spreads exponentially. The difference in infection numbers between an R0 of 5 and an R0 of 2 over period of time is massive.
I'm kind of shocked Newsweek printed that. Scientists have found that in those breakthrough infections (for Delta variant) the amount of virus in the sinuses of vaccinated people is similar to that of the unvaccinated. However a subsequent study showed that viral loads tend to go down more quickly as the vaccinated are usually infectious for much shorter periods of time.
Also, as you say, if they maintain efficacy of let's say 60%, that is fewer cases and makes an enormous difference.
She makes a throw away comment about vaccines creating dangerous variants but most scientists think the risk of dangerous variants arising is greater with more viral spread. The article she links to in order to support her point is written by Robert Malone and Peter Navarro. Navarro was a Trump adviser who promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine and made all sorts of outlandish claims during the pandemic. Malone claims he invented mrna vaccines though he plainly didn't. He seems to be friends with and appear on podcasts with Bret Weinstein who has been touting the benefits of ivermectin, which is the new hydroxychloroquine (placebo pill for nutjobs). Ivermectin can treat headlice but it has not been shown to be effective against covid. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/3aa2eefd
She also links to this article when she claims scientists have been blacklisted for recommending covid treatments https://www.onedaymd.com/2021/05/dr-...areed.html?m=1 . Anyone who reads this article and thinks it has merit is probably a fool.
Basically the author of the newsweek piece is a crank. Hospitals are being filled up with people who believe the sort of nonsense she is peddling.
The tragedy of this situation is that there is no debate on the merits of the science. In some, perhaps many cases, masks don't work, vaccines don't work -or are themselves conduits of illness- and if a friend or relative who did not wear a mask and was not vaccinated is admitted to hospital with Covid-19, it doesn't change minds. One even expects an American Christian to say 'it is God's will'. On the BBC news last night a reporter in Louisiana and Mississipi asked and was told vaccines don't work, in one case as a woman walked to church. I can imagine Jesus returning to Earth and in her church preaching a gospel of human love and fellowship, of the selfless caring for others and the moral duty we have to end suffering -and being denounced from the pulpit as a 'woke' liberal responsible for all society's failngs.
Science is constantly challenging itself and being challenged, but by intelligent debate, not the denial one recalls from those who, from the 19th century to today, rejected Darwin's theory of evolution because they didn't like it -or understand it. This is not even a dialogue of the deaf, as there is no dialogue, merely the echoing sounds of a confederacy of dunces.
I think what those two links (The NYT one is an article and the one from Newsweek is an opinion piece) that I posted show is that while the Trump/Republican voter/supporter maybe the loudest anti-vaccine people in the room, there are a good portion of people that are hesitant to get the vaccine for various reasons. Some of them legitimate. Some of them are based in paranoia and misinformation.
While it look likes the the fear of the Delta variant has led to a raise in vaccination rates, I think its time to adopt a new message when it comes to vaccinations.
Tweak the message. Keeping stressing that the vaccines are safe and the importance of getting them. Say that while at the moment they have only been approved for emergency use by FDA (Something I didn't know when I got fully vaccinated in February. But even if I did, I would still had gone through with it), so are some of the other courses of treatment for Covid 19.
While you're saying that, address people's concerns about getting the vaccine by saying the following:
"Don't listen to politicians. Don't listen to the media. Don't listen to celebrities. Don't even to listen public health officials. Talk to YOUR doctor about any concerns you may have and they will explain to why its important to get vaccinated".
That all sounds reasonable, and I understand that hectoring people can be counter-productive. However, at some point we will likely have to face the question of what do to if we can't persuade enough people to get vaccinated to allow us to get on top of this virus.
This is not a situation where peoples' choices affect only themselves. Even if people are fully-vaccinated, protection against serious health impacts is less than 100% and that may decline over time, especially if there are new variants because the virus is still circulating freely.
This isn't about forcibly vaccinating people. It's about the right mixture of incentives and whether people should face different restrictions for some purposes depending on their vaccination status.
I think some analogy can be made with road safety. We don't take the view that people should be allowed to do as they like in the name of freedom, because that obviously creates risks for others. We don't put the onus solely on people to protect themselves. We don't take the view that it's no big deal because only a small percentage of the population is affected.
True to the climate of corruption in Putin's Russia I see that now not only fake vaccination certificates are freely available as well as another vaccine ,EpiVacCorona , which cannot be shown to produce ANY antibodies against Sars CoV-2 but was rushed to market by a government consortium anyway.