COVID COVID-19 Coronavirus Containment Efforts

[Dale]

Preliminary data from Public Health England suggests 88% effeciveness of the Pfizer vaccine against B.1.617.2 (delta) vs 93% effectiveness against B.1.1.7 (alpha).

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the B.1.617.2 variant
https://khub.net/documents/13593956...iant.pdf/204c11a4-e02e-11f2-db19-b3664107ac42

Abstract Popular press summary: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1346

Note that the statement includes confidence intervals: "BNT162b2 2 dose effectiveness reduced from 93.4% (95%CI: 90.4 to 95.5) with B.1.1.7 to 87.9% (95%CI: 78.2 to 93.2) with B.1.617.2." So there is considerable overlap in the confidence interval.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So there is considerable overlap in the confidence interval.

There is, but it is also possible to be more certain that there has been a shift than the exact value of the before or after numbers. Common systematics are one reason (maybe the most frequent) you can get this behavior.

I don't know enough to determine if this is the case here or not.

 

[Dale]

There is, but it is also possible to be more certain that there has been a shift than the exact value of the before or after numbers. Common systematics are one reason (maybe the most frequent) you can get this behavior.

I don't know enough to determine if this is the case here or not.

Yes, that would be a confidence interval on the difference instead of a confidence interval on each individual value. Indeed, as you say, the confidence interval of the difference can be much smaller than the difference of the confidence intervals.

 

[chemisttree]

Thanks, Ygg.

 

[nsaspook]

Popular press summary: https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1346

The UK government has been urged to speed up giving two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine after data showed a single dose was only 33% effective against the B.1.617.2 variant first detected in India, which continues to see a rapid growth in cases in the UK.

https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/04...accines-upping-the-stakes-for-the-rest-of-us/

In an extraordinary time, British health authorities are taking extraordinary measures to beat back Covid-19. But some experts say that, in doing so, they are also taking a serious gamble.

In recent days, the British have said they will stretch out the interval between the administration of the two doses required for Covid-19 vaccines already in use — potentially to as long as three months, instead of the recommended three or four weeks. And they have said they will permit the first dose and second dose for anyone person to be from different vaccine manufacturers, if the matching vaccine is not available.

 

[chemisttree]

“We will not need a special vaccine for it. The current vaccine should cover it." - Albert Bourla (Pfizer CEO)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/covid-vaccine-delta-variant-pfizer-ceo/

 

[AlexCaledin]

Interestingly, no significant difference in COVID-19 incidence was observed between previously infected and currently unvaccinated participants, previously infected and currently vaccinated participants, and previously uninfected and currently vaccinated participants.
The participants from these three groups exhibited a significantly lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to previously uninfected and currently unvaccinated participants.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/2...ID-19-Findings-of-Cleveland-Clinic-study.aspx

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57464097

Covid: Lockdown easing in England to be delayed by four weeks​

But many scientists have called for the reopening to be delayed to enable more people to be vaccinated and receive second doses, amid rising cases of the Delta variant, which was first identified in India.
A delay would also allow more work to be done on whether vaccines are breaking, or simply weakening, the link between infections and hospitalisations.
Health Minister Edward Argar told BBC Breakfast that he could not confirm the delay before the PM's announcement, but that there was a "concerning increase" in cases of the Delta variant and numbers in hospital were "beginning to creep up".
Most severe cases were among unvaccinated people or those who had only one dose, he said, adding that at current rates nearly 10 million second doses could be administered over four weeks to increase protection.

 

[PeroK]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57464097

Covid: Lockdown easing in England to be delayed by four weeks​

We nearly made it! The only thing that could go wrong was a new variant that was severe enough and more resistant to the vaccine - and that's what we now have, courtesy of people flying in from India. Not only that, but it seems to be more virulent in the young, who are still largely unvaccinated.

Now 77% of the adult population (18+) have had one dose of the vaccine, and 56% have had both doses. However, to be protected from the Delta variant, it seems, you need both doses. That's why we are effectively back at 56%, rather than 77%.

Moreover, once we take into account the 14 million children under 18, the vaccinated numbers are only 61% and 44%. A long way from the supposed herd immunity at 80%.

I did see a BBC News item weighing up the pros and cons of vaccinating secondary school children (12+). It seemed that, in summary:

Argument for: vaccinating children is necessary to end the pandemic - especially given the Delta variant.

Argument against: maybe we shouldn't do it.

In any case, we now need an extra 4 weeks of full-steam vaccinations to get about 80% of the adult population fully vaccinated.

Note: these are figures for the UK, not just England.

 

[pinball1970]

We nearly made it! The only thing that could go wrong was a new variant that was severe enough and more resistant to the vaccine - and that's what we now have, courtesy of people flying in from India. Not only that, but it seems to be more virulent in the young, who are still largely unvaccinated.

Now 77% of the adult population (18+) have had one dose of the vaccine, and 56% have had both doses. However, to be protected from the Delta variant, it seems, you need both doses. That's why we are effectively back at 56%, rather than 77%.

Moreover, once we take into account the 14 million children under 18, the vaccinated numbers are only 61% and 44%. A long way from the supposed herd immunity at 80%.

I did see a BBC News item weighing up the pros and cons of vaccinating secondary school children (12+). It seemed that, in summary:

Argument for: vaccinating children is necessary to end the pandemic - especially given the Delta variant.

Argument against: maybe we shouldn't do it.

In any case, we now need an extra 4 weeks of full-steam vaccinations to get about 80% of the adult population fully vaccinated.

Note: these are figures for the UK, not just England.

Something to do with this...

 

[PeroK]

So far the Delta variant has been largely contained to hotspots in the NW of England. The problem is that a general opening up would potentially unleash it across the whole country.

 

[pinball1970]

So far the Delta variant has been largely contained to hotspots in the NW of England. The problem is that a general opening up would potentially unleash it across the whole country.

Yes, rather disappointing that my home town/ county, appears to be single handedly responsible for a rise in infections in England.

The last thing we need now is people visiting between the NW and other cities in the UK.

My local newspaper article.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...st-coronavirus-infection-rates-every-20806559

Breakdown of the areas, I work in one area, live in another and travel to Manchester itself to visit the library and pubs to socialize.

Manchester is out for a few weeks at least.

 

[atyy]

Interview with Christian Drosten
https://www.republik.ch/2021/06/05/herr-drosten-woher-kam-dieses-virus

[Excerpt translated from German by Google Translate]

Mr Drosten, in Germany you became the first source of information for many in this crisis with the NDR podcast “Coronavirus Update”. When you started the podcast over a year ago, what would you have liked to know what you know today?
I didn't know at the time how the media worked.

What do you mean by that?
What I didn't realize at all is this false balance that can arise in public, in the media. And that this can only be corrected to a limited extent.

False balance?
That one says: Okay, here is a majority opinion, which is represented by a hundred scientists. But then there are these two scientists who argue the opposite. In the media presentation, however, you then put one of these hundred against one of these two. And then it looks like it's 50:50, a conflict of opinion. And then what happens is what is actually the problem with it, namely that politicians say: "Well, then the truth will lie in the middle." That is that wrong compromise in the middle. And that's something I didn't know qualitatively. I didn't know this phenomenon existed. I also didn't know that it was so persistent and inevitable. This has happened in practically all countries, this problem. All scientists speak of it. It was not clear to me that a podcast would put me in the middle of this area of tension.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Interestingly, no significant difference in COVID-19 incidence was observed between previously infected and currently unvaccinated participants, previously infected and currently vaccinated participants, and previously uninfected and currently vaccinated participants.
The participants from these three groups exhibited a significantly lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to previously uninfected and currently unvaccinated participants.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/2...ID-19-Findings-of-Cleveland-Clinic-study.aspx

Here's the citation for the pre-print manuscript discussed in the article:

Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2

Abstract:

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Methods Employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System working in Ohio on Dec 16, 2020, the day COVID-19 vaccination was started, were included. Any subject who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least 42 days earlier was considered previously infected. One was considered vaccinated 14 days after receipt of the second dose of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection over the next five months, among previously infected subjects who received the vaccine, was compared with those of previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated, previously uninfected subjects who received the vaccine, and previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated.
Results Among the 52238 included employees, 1359 (53%) of 2579 previously infected subjects remained unvaccinated, compared with 22777 (41%) of 49659 not previously infected. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study. In a Cox proportional hazards regression model, after adjusting for the phase of the epidemic, vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among those not previously infected (HR 0.031, 95% CI 0.015 to 0.061) but not among those previously infected (HR 0.313, 95% CI 0 to Infinity).
Conclusions Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.
Summary Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52238 employees in an American healthcare system. COVID-19 did not occur in anyone over the five months of the study among 2579 individuals previously infected with COVID-19, including 1359 who did not take the vaccine.

While that study looked at ~2.5k previously infected individuals, a study from Denmark published in The Lancet tracked 11k previously infected people for reinfection and found 80.5% protection from reinfection (and a 93% protection against symptomatic infection). This level of protection is similar to that reported for the more effective vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, Novavax). Unlike the Cleveland Clinic study, the Danish study had a good population of older individuals to observe and found decreased protection among older adults (>age 65), which is an important factor to consider because they are the most susceptible to severe disease.

Assessment of protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 among 4 million PCR-tested individuals in Denmark in 2020: a population-level observational study
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00575-4/fulltext

Abstract

Background The degree to which infection with SARS-CoV-2 confers protection towards subsequent reinfection is not well described. In 2020, as part of Denmark's extensive, free-of-charge PCR-testing strategy, approximately 4 million individuals (69% of the population) underwent 10·6 million tests. Using these national PCR-test data from 2020, we estimated protection towards repeat infection with SARS-CoV-2.
Methods In this population-level observational study, we collected individual-level data on patients who had been tested in Denmark in 2020 from the Danish Microbiology Database and analysed infection rates during the second surge of the COVID-19 epidemic, from Sept 1 to Dec 31, 2020, by comparison of infection rates between individuals with positive and negative PCR tests during the first surge (March to May, 2020). For the main analysis, we excluded people who tested positive for the first time between the two surges and those who died before the second surge. We did an alternative cohort analysis, in which we compared infection rates throughout the year between those with and without a previous confirmed infection at least 3 months earlier, irrespective of date. We also investigated whether differences were found by age group, sex, and time since infection in the alternative cohort analysis. We calculated rate ratios (RRs) adjusted for potential confounders and estimated protection against repeat infection as 1 – RR.
Findings During the first surge (ie, before June, 2020), 533 381 people were tested, of whom 11 727 (2·20%) were PCR positive, and 525 339 were eligible for follow-up in the second surge, of whom 11 068 (2·11%) had tested positive during the first surge. Among eligible PCR-positive individuals from the first surge of the epidemic, 72 (0·65% [95% CI 0·51–0·82]) tested positive again during the second surge compared with 16 819 (3·27% [3·22–3·32]) of 514 271 who tested negative during the first surge (adjusted RR 0·195 [95% CI 0·155–0·246]). Protection against repeat infection was 80·5% (95% CI 75·4–84·5). The alternative cohort analysis gave similar estimates (adjusted RR 0·212 [0·179–0·251], estimated protection 78·8% [74·9–82·1]). In the alternative cohort analysis, among those aged 65 years and older, observed protection against repeat infection was 47·1% (95% CI 24·7–62·8). We found no difference in estimated protection against repeat infection by sex (male 78·4% [72·1–83·2] vs female 79·1% [73·9–83·3]) or evidence of waning protection over time (3–6 months of follow-up 79·3% [74·4–83·3] vs ≥7 months of follow-up 77·7% [70·9–82·9]).
Interpretation Our findings could inform decisions on which groups should be vaccinated and advocate for vaccination of previously infected individuals because natural protection, especially among older people, cannot be relied on.

Popular press summary: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/04/previous-covid-19-may-cut-risk-reinfection-84

 

[ChemAir]

Interview with Christian Drosten
https://www.republik.ch/2021/06/05/herr-drosten-woher-kam-dieses-virus

[Excerpt translated from German by Google Translate]

Mr Drosten, in Germany you became the first source of information for many in this crisis with the NDR podcast “Coronavirus Update”. When you started the podcast over a year ago, what would you have liked to know what you know today?
I didn't know at the time how the media worked.

What do you mean by that?
What I didn't realize at all is this false balance that can arise in public, in the media. And that this can only be corrected to a limited extent.

False balance?
That one says: Okay, here is a majority opinion, which is represented by a hundred scientists. But then there are these two scientists who argue the opposite. In the media presentation, however, you then put one of these hundred against one of these two. And then it looks like it's 50:50, a conflict of opinion. And then what happens is what is actually the problem with it, namely that politicians say: "Well, then the truth will lie in the middle." That is that wrong compromise in the middle. And that's something I didn't know qualitatively. I didn't know this phenomenon existed. I also didn't know that it was so persistent and inevitable. This has happened in practically all countries, this problem. All scientists speak of it. It was not clear to me that a podcast would put me in the middle of this area of tension.

I am of the same mind.

100 scientists with one (scientifically determined) opinion vs 1 individual with anecdotally driven hyperbole with pictures is not pretty.

Media and politicians haven't helped this situation.

 

[chemisttree]

Believing the 100 scientists and not the two in the minority because of majority rule IS NOT SCIENCE!

The arguments on both sides must be at least discussed and not suppressed.

 

[jack action]

100 scientists with one (scientifically determined) opinion vs 1 individual with anecdotally driven hyperbole with pictures is not pretty.

Media and politicians haven't helped this situation.

Believing the 100 scientists and not the two in the minority because of majority rule IS NOT SCIENCE!

The arguments on both sides must be at least discussed and not suppressed.

The fact that there is a ratio of 100:1 scientists promoting one way over another shouldn't have to be the only reason why I choose that way. The fact that I choose one way or the other doesn't also mean that I agree with the reasoning behind the scientists promoting it (whether they are 100 or just 2). I might choose that way for entirely different reasons.

I don't understand why there should be a consensus. Isn't science only there to report observations? Isn't it up to the readers of those reports to make up their minds? Do they have to necessarily agree on the actions to take based on those reports? Is there only one way that can work? Aren't there "local" variations that can affect the final decision of one individual vs another one?

I really don't understand this idea that there is only one right way of doing things, and we must find it, and we must do it or die. Simple observations of nature tell us pretty much the opposite story: Send most towards a preferred path but still explore all directions. Probably just in case it doesn't work as expected.

I really don't get why people - either pro- or anti- whatever - think that it is crucial to convince everybody else to follow their path and destroy anyone else who doesn't agree with them.

 

[PeroK]

Believing the 100 scientists and not the two in the minority because of majority rule IS NOT SCIENCE!

The arguments on both sides must be at least discussed and not suppressed.

It depends what you mean by suppressed. Anyone can call themselves a scientist and promote a bizarre theory. Do we give all points of view equal airtime?

PF (has to) suppress things all the time, otherwise we would sink in a sea of pseudo-scientific garbage.

Also, I believe that being politically naive and/or ignoring the consequences of publicising fringe theories about something as serious as COVID is as bad as being unscientific. We can't ignore the political consequences of a scientific free-for-all.

 

[vela]

Believing the 100 scientists and not the two in the minority because of majority rule IS NOT SCIENCE!

The arguments on both sides must be at least discussed and not suppressed.

Context matters. Most here will not claim that arguments and ideas should be suppressed in the advancement of science, but when it comes to the media, fringe ideas shouldn't be given the appearance of equal weight to the view accepted by the mainstream.

When a scientific consensus exists, it's because the majority of experts in the field have discussed the various explanations and found one to be overwhelmingly convincing. Arguing that the media should always report both sides in an attempt to appear fair and balanced is saying the media should essentially ignore the judgment of the people most knowledgeable in the field, the ones who are best able to evaluate the validity and correctness of an idea.

 

[Dale]

Believing the 100 scientists and not the two in the minority because of majority rule IS NOT SCIENCE!

The arguments on both sides must be at least discussed and not suppressed.

You are missing the context. That was about inaccurate and misleading media coverage of science, not about science itself. Nobody is saying that the 2 scientists need to stop doing their science, but there is little value and no truth in disproportionately inflating their media coverage.

 

[mfb]

Isn't it up to the readers of those reports to make up their minds?

To do that properly requires subject-specific expertise. We cannot expect people to be an expert in everything. At best we can show what experts say. If you give some random crackpot or fringe scientist the same air time as the consensus of all experts then viewers/readers will get the impression there would be an actual scientific discussion without a clear favorite, which is often wrong.

As a video

 

[jack action]

To do that properly requires subject-specific expertise.

No, it doesn't. You don't have to understand how a car works to hire a mechanic. You ask some questions to different mechanics and you determine who looks more trustworthy. Sometimes it's the stranger with the big diploma and years of experience, sometimes it's your brother-in-law. People have been doing this for hundreds of years, if not thousands.

And this is the problem with the scientific community right now: They're slowly losing the trust of the general population. Why does a basketball player begin to publicly claim that the Earth is flat? Does he really care about the shape of the Earth? No, he doesn't. Why do people listening to him would believe him? He has zero credibility and he's just throwing the idea in a press conference, with no evidence to support it; people are not stupid, they can see that.

The true message here is that more and more people don't trust anything coming from the scientific community and that's how they retaliate, by throwing everything out the window. They will not answer back to you with your words and methods: they don't understand it, they don't even trust it. Just like when your mechanic or your brother-in-law says something fishy: you stop listening to him and go somewhere else; you don't care about his credentials.

And if the scientific community is too arrogant towards these people instead of trying to earn their trust back, it can lose everything. Even if it has all the right answers.

 

[Rive]

if the scientific community is too arrogant towards these people instead of trying to earn their trust back, it can lose everything.

My humble opinion is, that 'these people' risks far more than the scientific community. The conflict arises when they endanger others, or when they expected to be saved even against the consequences of their behaviour.

I don't understand why there should be a consensus. Isn't science only there to report observations?

A bunch of security cams could 'report' too but that does not nominate them for Nobel. Sorry.

The arguments on both sides must be at least discussed and not suppressed.

If there is (scientific) argument then you are right. But 'media' as-is is not really about any kind of respectable arguments.
We too had the mentioned kind of 'discussion' on TV between some scientists and some crackpots.
It was not about science. It was about the most primal kind of domination.

 

[atyy]

Drosten is definitely not to be trusted - making basic mistakes no scientist would make. https://www.spiegel.de/internationa...summer-a-f22c0495-5257-426e-bddc-c6082d6434d5

DER SPIEGEL: You did make one bad mistake in your podcast on Tuesday.

Drosten: Uh oh. What?

DER SPIEGEL: In answering a question, you mentioned a number. The number, you said, was the same one as from the science fiction classic "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy": 21. Really, 21?

Drosten: Wait a sec. I've read the book! The 21 in the podcast was a spontaneous joke. I knew it was half of the real number!

DER SPIEGEL: Precisely. In the book, 42 is the answer to "the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything." We're quite relieved.

 

[pinball1970]

No, it doesn't. You don't have to understand how a car works to hire a mechanic. You ask some questions to different mechanics and you determine who looks more trustworthy. Sometimes it's the stranger with the big diploma and years of experience, sometimes it's your brother-in-law. People have been doing this for hundreds of years, if not thousands.

And this is the problem with the scientific community right now: They're slowly losing the trust of the general population. Why does a basketball player begin to publicly claim that the Earth is flat? Does he really care about the shape of the Earth? No, he doesn't. Why do people listening to him would believe him? He has zero credibility and he's just throwing the idea in a press conference, with no evidence to support it; people are not stupid, they can see that.

The true message here is that more and more people don't trust anything coming from the scientific community and that's how they retaliate, by throwing everything out the window. They will not answer back to you with your words and methods: they don't understand it, they don't even trust it. Just like when your mechanic or your brother-in-law says something fishy: you stop listening to him and go somewhere else; you don't care about his credentials.

And if the scientific community is too arrogant towards these people instead of trying to earn their trust back, it can lose everything. Even if it has all the right answers.

In terms of COVID for the UK daily updates using the experts was a mixture of layman’s language describing the illness risks, real data, graphs, diagrams etc.

I thought it was well paced not too dry and not too condescending.

Professor Whitty , Van tam with a few other specialists and government health care professionals with Boris in the background.

The people who have lost trust of the scientific community are the same people who thought the virus was being spread by G4 (G4 posts were attacked in the UK for this reason)

The same people also claimed the virus was fake and the vaccine was Bill Gates attempt to inject people with nano transmitters to keep track of the planet.

Also Covid is real but is just like flu
Kills only over 80s
Everyone who has died in the UK is automatically given COVID diagnosis on the death certificate
The latest thing seems to be the Wuhan lab release (so now Covid is real again) whether deliberately or by accidentally and by who depends on which conspirator you talk to.There was a story (not quite a conspiracy) that the LHC (before it was switched on) would create a black hole and swallow the earth, people jumped on it.
Without knowing anything about physics.
I was worried (not for long) BECAUSE I did NOT understand the physics!I think the back lash against the science in the UK is partly to do with anti-government sentiment so the rest follows.
Combine that with face book/twitter style fact finding, conspiracy web sites (Column UK is particularly bad for science) poor education in science and you end up with a bunch of people who do not trust scientists.

 

[jack action]

I think the back lash against the science in the UK is partly to do with anti-government sentiment so the rest follows.

Yeah, maybe it is not a good idea for the scientific community to let the government and the media control their message. Maybe it is not a good idea to accept money from the government too.

 

[pinball1970]

Yeah, maybe it is not a good idea for the scientific community to let the government and the media control their message. Maybe it is not a good idea to accept money from the government too.

The briefings had to be a mixture of minsters and scientists as the policy goes on the back of it.

By “media” the briefings were on most channels, people have a choice to watch the BBC, CH4 news or get tit bits from CH5 news.

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic on the second part.

My taxes fund some government scientific research projects, I am happy my money is spent in this way.

 

[mfb]

@jack action: If people could easily assess how credible claims are - as you claim - then all the nonsense wouldn't get any attention because people would dismiss it directly. Many people do, but a substantial fraction of the population does not.

Just like when your mechanic or your brother-in-law says something fishy: you stop listening to him and go somewhere else; you don't care about his credentials.

You would think flat Earth, magnetic vaccines, Jewish space lasers & co would be in that category, but apparently they are not.

Maybe it is not a good idea to accept money from the government too.

Should I start a Gofundme for the LHC and SuperKEKB?

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, maybe it is not a good idea for the scientific community to let the government and the media control their message. Maybe it is not a good idea to accept money from the government too.

That doesn't work here/is backwards. The pandemic response is coordinate by the government(s). The scientists are advising the government(s) on how to run the response. The government(s) pay the scientists for their advice/expertise. There's just no way around that here. The problem @pinball1970 pointed out is accurate: the distrust extends from anti-government sentiment to the scientists employed by the government (with the ironic twist in the US that POTUS was stoking that sentiment).

You don't have to understand how a car works to hire a mechanic. You ask some questions to different mechanics and you determine who looks more trustworthy. Sometimes it's the stranger with the big diploma and years of experience, sometimes it's your brother-in-law. People have been doing this for hundreds of years, if not thousands.

Seriously?

1. Very few people hired doctors/scientists to advise them on their COVID avoidance strategy, and certainly almost nobody who was primed against COVID avoidance would have. Most of the contrarian information out there is fabrications on social media, not legitimate dissenting opinions from actual scientists/doctors. When you "ask some questions to different mechanics", that means going to different auto shops and asking people you know are actual mechanics, not just some random dood on Reddit what that rattle might be. I mean, maybe you do that too, but if you think there's a legitimate problem you take your car to a legitimate mechanic.

2. My brother-in-law is a car guy, but he's not a doctor. He can't prescribe me medicine and I think even if I gave him permission to do surgery on me, he could still be arrested for it. Medicine is different/more serious/more complicated than auto repair. If I think I have a significant health problem/risk, I go see a doctor. I know a lot of people don't, and that often ends badly for them. I hope you're not in that category. But more to the point:

3. COVID is not just an individual risk, it is a societal one, and therefore within the domain of government to coordinate the response, including mandatory measures if deemed necessary. If a sufficient number of people will act stupidly if given the opportunity, it is reasonable/lawful/ethical for the government(s) to step in and force certain measures.

 

[jack action]

If people could easily assess how credible claims are - as you claim - then all the nonsense wouldn't get any attention because people would dismiss it directly.

If you read what I wrote carefully, you should understand that those people are not approving claims, they are really dismissing people they don't trust.

You would think flat Earth, magnetic vaccines, Jewish space lasers & co would be in that category, but apparently they are not.

No, what falls into this category are all the scary predictions that never happened or other exaggerations that were presumably backed by science (for example, statements done in nutrition come to mind). Those are the fishy statements I'm referring to.

Should I start a Gofundme for the LHC and SuperKEKB?

Why not? A lot of religions don't get funded by the government. The Crazy Horse memorial is not government-funded. Was Issac Newton's work funded by the government? Why wouldn't you find enough people believing in science to get funds? Don't despair, @pinball1970 would be happy to contribute:

My taxes fund some government scientific research projects, I am happy my money is spent in this way.

I would too. See, you don't need the government as a middle-man. Except if you want money from people who don't want to give it to you.

the distrust extends from anti-government sentiment, to the scientists employed by the government

I agree with that 100% and it is exactly what I said. The message to be heard is not "I believe vaccination is wrong" but "I don't trust you anymore, no matter what you say". I also understand that governments and media not always represent the scientist's findings as they were presented, but more as what message they want to pass on.

When you "ask some questions to different mechanics", that means going to different auto shops and asking people you know are actual mechanics, not just some random dood on Reddit what that rattle might be. I mean, maybe you do that too, but if you think there's a legitimate problem you take your car to a legitimate mechanic.

Do you mean like that? Do you know why you did that? That's because you cannot trust a mechanic alone, just because he's a mechanic. You need to discuss with people who had experiences. Sometimes people who just had experiences with mechanics and no knowledge of car repair are helpful too. You do the same with doctors and you would be crazy not to do it.

Medicine is different/more serious/more complicated.

You mean more serious than a braking system? You can kill yourself or others with a car that is not correctly maintained.

COVID is not just an individual risk, it is a societal one,

Still not convinced of that. If you don't want to get Covid, take the measures you think are appropriate. You think wearing a mask is sufficient? Wear a mask. You think you're OK with a vaccine? Get vaccinated. Too many "irresponsible" people outside without a mask? Stay at home. Get a positive pressure set up for your home if you think you need it. I don't care where you get your information to do your risk analysis. And I welcome the government giving me information to help me make the best decisions. Still, I think it is my decision.

Survivalists have been doing this type of thing for many years and they don't wait for the government or other people around them to act. They mostly do it because they don't trust other people to be responsible enough. They just adapt to their environment (people included), but more importantly, they don't force others to do the same as they do.

 

[Dale]

You don't have to understand how a car works to hire a mechanic.

The problem arises if you, not understanding how the car works, hire a good mechanic and then refuse to let him fix your brakes when he, as an expert, tells you that the brakes are unsafe but you read on facebook that mechanics disagree about the importance of fixing your brakes. Then you go out and endanger your own life and the lives of others simply because you, having no understanding, put your judgement over that of the experts.

And this is the problem with the scientific community right now: They're slowly losing the trust of the general population.

This is not a problem specific to the scientific community. Trust in all institutions is eroding among the general population. That includes government, financial institutions, religion, education, marriage, police, military, democracy, and science. I suspect that science is actually faring better than most other institutions as part of this general decline in institutional trust, but I don't have a reference for that.

That is not to say that science cannot do certain things to stem that rising tide of general distrust. There is considerable work in the medical and social sciences to fix the systematic issues that lead to the so-called "replication crisis". But I am not convinced that trust in the scientific establishment is at all improved by scientists not speaking out against misinformation when it is presented nor by scientists pretending that an expert informed opinion is no more valuable than an uninformed opinion.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with that 100% and it is exactly what I said.

No, it's not what you said or what I said; you cut out the thesis what you quoted. Again: the government employs the scientists and delivers the scientists' message. That's exactly the opposite of what you said, but it is the unavoidable reality here.

The message to be heard is not "I believe vaccination is wrong" but "I don't trust you anymore, no matter what you say".

That's a problem. Once someone shuts out The Authority, then they have primed themselves to do the opposite of what The Authority suggests/demands, regardless of merit. That's basically what has happened here.

Do you mean like that? Do you know why you did that? That's because you cannot trust a mechanic alone, just because he's a mechanic.

No, you're misrepresenting the issue here/there. For starters, I'm a mechanical engineer and have some knowledge of how cars and their systems operate. So are many on PF (including you I believe?). I didn't take the car to a mechanic yet not because I don't trust them, but because the issue is minor enough I don't need to yet. Nor is that an accurate portrayal of dissenting information, particular given PF's high quality standards and members. Members here have known expertise. I repeat: much of the dissentingmis-information out there on COVID/the vaccine comes from literal fake news on social media.

You do the same with doctors and you would be crazy not to do it.

In point of fact, that is expressly prohibited on PF, for exactly the reasons I've explained. The approach that is being taken by many on this subject is not just dangerous, but is indeed in many cases, crazy. No, I most certainly would not take the same approach with doctors as I did with my car issue.

And again, my car issue was a weak battery. It's really difficult to kill someone with a weak battery. This is below the level of seriousness that required an immediate mechanic visit in the same way a minor runny nose or headache is below the level of seriousness that requires an immediate doctor visit.

You mean more serious than a braking system? You can kill yourself or others with a car that is not correctly maintained.

Yes, much more serious than a braking system. I can kill a small number of people with a failed braking system, but I can't kill 600,000. And much more complicated than a braking system.

Still not convinced of that. If you don't want to get Covid, take the measures you think are appropriate. You think wearing a mask is sufficient? Wear a mask. You think you're OK with a vaccine? Get vaccinated. Too many "irresponsible" people outside without a mask? Stay at home. Get a positive pressure set up for your home if you think you need it. I don't care where you get your information to do your risk analysis. And I welcome the government giving me information to help me make the best decisions. Still, I think it is my decision.

That's an unreasonably exclusivist view of how freedom works, because the choices are not symmetrical. One person can decide for everyone else in a supermarket/bar/stadium if that venue has a COVID risk, forcing everyone else to take action to mitigate it. Worse, nobody knows who/if that risk exists. It's similar to smoking, except you can't smell it. Prior to about 20 years ago, one smoker could go to a bar and turn the bar into a "smoking bar", that affected people who were already there. Heck, you could even say the same for drunk driving; if you don't want to be around me while I'm driving drunk, maybe you should stay home? The freedom to act irresponsibly ends where it impacts someone else. This is a foundational philosophy of why/for what modern governments exist.

Survivalists have been doing this type of thing for many years and they don't wait for the government or other people around them to act.

[edit] That's an example of a mitigation effort. This discussion isn't about how an individual's mitigation effort doesn't affect anyone else, it's about how an individual's lack of mitigation does affect everyone else. You're arguing the inverse of the position you are trying to defend.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem arises if you, not understanding how the car works, hire a good mechanic and then refuse to let him fix your brakes when he, as an expert, tells you that the brakes are unsafe but you read on facebook that mechanics disagree about the importance of fixing your brakes. Then you go out and endanger your own life and the lives of others simply because you, having no understanding, put your judgement over that of the experts.

And, indeed, you can be arrested and charged with vehicular homicide for failure to maintain a vehicle:
https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-2001-01-17-3349212-story.html

There was also a famous night club/pier collapse in Philly a few decades ago where the owners hired a structural engineer who told them the pier was collapsing and they opened it anyway. I think they might have been acquitted though.

And similarly/for example, violating a quarantine can be a chargeable offense.

 

[Dale]

The freedom to act irresponsibly ends where it impacts someone else. This is a foundational philosophy of why/for what modern governments exist.

Or the distinction between liberty and anarchy.

 

[PeroK]

Or the distinction between liberty and anarchy.

And, after all, the US Constitution says (emphasis mine):

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It's not the every-man-and-woman-for-themselves doctrine that some would have you believe.

 

[AlexCaledin]

...some experts believe that nasal vaccines are equally effective and easier to administer...

Experts say the antibody can provide both mucosal and systemic immunity when triggered by a vaccine sprayed into the nasal cavity. In contrast, injectable vaccines only provoke a systemic immune response.

https://floridanewstimes.com/creating-a-needle-free-covid-19-vaccine/282066/

 

[Ygggdrasil]

No, it doesn't. You don't have to understand how a car works to hire a mechanic. You ask some questions to different mechanics and you determine who looks more trustworthy. Sometimes it's the stranger with the big diploma and years of experience, sometimes it's your brother-in-law. People have been doing this for hundreds of years, if not thousands.

And this is the problem with the scientific community right now: They're slowly losing the trust of the general population. Why does a basketball player begin to publicly claim that the Earth is flat? Does he really care about the shape of the Earth? No, he doesn't. Why do people listening to him would believe him? He has zero credibility and he's just throwing the idea in a press conference, with no evidence to support it; people are not stupid, they can see that.

The true message here is that more and more people don't trust anything coming from the scientific community and that's how they retaliate, by throwing everything out the window. They will not answer back to you with your words and methods: they don't understand it, they don't even trust it. Just like when your mechanic or your brother-in-law says something fishy: you stop listening to him and go somewhere else; you don't care about his credentials.

And if the scientific community is too arrogant towards these people instead of trying to earn their trust back, it can lose everything. Even if it has all the right answers.

Although I definitely agree with the general point that the scientific community should improve how it communicates information with the general public, I don't think the specific point about scientists losing the trust of the general public is true. In general, polling in the US shows that public confidence in scientists has remained stable for decades, even as confidence in other institutions (such as the press) has fallen:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...n-scientists-has-remained-stable-for-decades/

This data, however, only goes up to 2018, and it's definitely possible that the pandemic could alter this trend. However, subsequent polling during the pandemic shows that public trust in medical scientists has grown from 2019 to 2020. Of course, attitudes could change, so it's worth monitoring how these attitudes change over the coming years, but so far, I see no data to support the idea that the general public is losing trust in science.

Rather, what I think may be happening brings us to the original point brought up by @atyy. Many news sources focus on reporting conflict and as such they magnify the voices of the minority who are doubting scientific results. This could give the false sense that many are losing confidence in science when (as polling of the larger population shows) this is not the case.

 

[jack action]

I don't think the specific point about scientists losing the trust of the general public is true. In general, polling in the US shows that public confidence in scientists has remained stable for decades,

Maybe it's stable, but 44% is not a lot to begin with. Anyway, not for someone like me who is a true believer in the scientific method. But thanks for the data.

Many news sources focus on reporting conflict and as such they magnify the voices of the minority who are doubting scientific results.

The real question is why do these news sources choose to report those reporting conflicts in the first place. And this brings me back to the point that people are beginning to lose their trust in their usual sources.

The government is most likely the source of distrust. Since WWII, governments have been relying heavily on science to promote their messages (whether one thinks these messages are good or bad). Governments like to present science as some sort of divinatory tool and, except for some specialized cases (like in astronomy), it is not. It's more like a thorough risk analysis ... that can still be wrong ... mostly because it is handled by humans with emotions.

I am afraid that more and more people are now thinking that science and government are in the same bed and if they think one is bad, then so must be the other. Personally - although not adhering to any conspiracy theories - I don't like some "truths" I hear based on mathematical models, probabilities & statistics, or simplified experiments. I might not be an expert on those, but I played enough with them to know they are not always that reliable. Not saying they are not useful tools, just that you have to be careful interpreting the results.

That's why I think the science community should do a lot more to keep (increase?) its credibility by putting the accent more on their confidence interval and distancing itself from governments and their decisions.

 

[AlexCaledin]

. . . viruses are known to compete in order to be the one that causes an infection.

The team at the Centre for Virus Research in Glasgow used a replica of the lining of our airways, made out of the same types of cells, and infected it with Sars-CoV-2 and rhinovirus, which is one of the most widespread infections in people, and a cause of the common cold.

If rhinovirus and Sars-CoV-2 were released at the same time, only rhinovirus is successful. If rhinovirus had a 24-hour head start then Sars-CoV-2 does not get a look in. And even when Sars-CoV-2 had 24-hours to get started, rhinovirus boots it out.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56483445

_______________________________________________________

- so, the unprecedented social distancing might have disabled the natural "vaccine" (the rhinovirus) - thus creating this unprecedented pandemic??

 

[mfb]

The real question is why do these news sources choose to report those reporting conflicts in the first place.

It sells better.

"Masks work" is a good story.
"Scientists say masks work but some people disagree, we invited one to discuss" sells better.
"Is mask wearing the newest plot by [group] to [insert random made-up goal]?" finds a large audience, too.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Maybe it's stable, but 44% is not a lot to begin with. Anyway, not for someone like me who is a true believer in the scientific method. But thanks for the data.

It's important to put that figure into context, however. Scientists are the most trusted group that were included in the poll, far exceeding the levels of trust of other groups such as religious leaders, journalists, business leaders and elected officials:

A 2020 Pew Research Center survey asked respondents about their confidence in certain groups and institutions to act in the best interests of the public. Out of the 10 groups and institutions included in the survey, Americans are most likely to express confidence in medical scientists, scientists and the military.

About nine-in-ten U.S. adults (89%) have either a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in medical scientists to act in the public interest. Large majorities also have at least a fair amount of confidence in scientists (87%) and the military (83%).

By contrast, about half of Americans have not too much or no confidence in journalists or business leaders (52% each) to act in the public interest. Public trust in elected officials also is comparatively low; a majority (62%) say they have little or no confidence in them.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...n-scientists-has-remained-stable-for-decades/

Of course, a major caveat of this poll was that it was conducted in April 2020 (which could very well represent a high point in public trust of science), so attitudes could certainly have changed since then. We may have to wait for survey data from 2021 to see if the pandemic has affected the public's attitudes toward and trust in science and scientists.

 

[Jarvis323]

You'de be quite foolish to have a great deal of trust in any group of people in my opinion.

And regarding science, you should place your trust in science itself, not people who proclaim to be using it.

 

[jack action]

It sells better.

It is not an answer because it leads to the question «Why does it sell better?»

In other words, why people are not satisfied with the message for the dominant scientific opinion? If they trusted this group, would they be spending time and money to hear about less popular opinions, sometimes from more obscure groups? If I take my mechanic example once more, if I find a good one, I don't waste my time shopping around when I get a new car problem: I already have an expert I trust. I certainly don't waste my time asking the shady ones.

 

[russ_watters]

You'de be quite foolish to have a great deal of trust in any group of people in my opinion.

And regarding science, you should place your trust in science itself, not people who proclaim to be using it.

IMO, these views as stated are bleak, unreasonable and for practical purposes unworkable.

For the first; we can't all be experts in everything, nor do we have time or capability to learn or check everything. Trust - a great deal of it - is a requirement to function as a human in society unless one chooses to live in a cave. Our days are filled with activities that require a great deal of trust in a large number of people we've never met and that trust is given without even a first, much less second thought. Even in the dozen(s?) of life or death situations we face daily.

And for the second part: All of the above applies, plus it should be easier to trust people we are aware of than to trust people we aren't.

What's so bad about COVID anti-vax is that we have the necessary information to make rational decisions. It's not fear/lack of trust of the unknown, it's disbelief in the known.

 

[Jarvis323]

IMO, these views as stated are bleak, unreasonable and for practical purposes unworkable.

For the first; we can't all be experts in everything, nor do we have time or capability to learn or check everything. Trust - a great deal of it - is a requirement to function as a human in society unless one chooses to live in a cave. Our days are filled with activities that require a great deal of trust in a large number of people we've never met and that trust is given without even a first, much less second thought. Even in the dozen(s?) of life or death situations we face daily.

And for the second part: All of the above applies, plus it should be easier to trust people we are aware of than to trust people we aren't.

What's so bad about COVID anti-vax is that we have the necessary information to make rational decisions. It's not fear/lack of trust of the unknown, it's disbelief in the known.

So if a prominant scientist told you to jump off of a bridge because you'll be able to fly, would you? Why not?

 

[russ_watters]

So if a prominant scientist told you to jump off of a bridge because you'll be able to fly, would you? Why not?

Seriously? My mom used to say that to me. "If your friends..." Answer: maybe, but it depends on the context.

That's just plain not what this is/is so absurd it's hard to even respond to. How in the heck would I even get into such a conversation? "Hey doc, my knee hurts, what should I do...?"

 

[Jarvis323]

Seriously? My mom used to say that to me. "If your friends..." Answer: maybe, but it depends on the context.

That's just plain not what this is/is so absurd it's hard to even respond to. How in the heck would I even get into such a conversation? "Hey doc, my knee hurts, what should I do...?"

It's not absurd. It's an extreme example of a spectrum of subtly different types of situations. I think you should start there, and move right trying to figure out where you draw the line.

In any case, you've got to do some thinking for yourself and use some judgement. I have a feeling you will trust a scientist, because you think they're using science and scientific results. But you still have to trust the person first. If they tell you to do something ridiculous you will probably not trust them. If they tell you something that sounds plausible you might trust more. You'll want to know whether they have conflicts of interest. You'll want some convincing of some sort. You might get second opinions. If you're able to you might do some literature review of your own.

Maybe it is more likely that a scientist will be able to convince a person to take their advice. But you would be a fool to take it without deciding to trust them on that advice first.

 

[Jarvis323]

And we should not obfuscate the context. Trust in scientific institutions is suffering, but that is not all because trust in science is suffering.

In these crazy times, science has become heavily politicized, and the media is lumping good scientists in with right wing conspiracy theorists, even when they are right, if they go against an official media driven narrative, even when it's blatently wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

It's not absurd. It's an extreme example of a spectrum of subtly different types of situations. I think you should start there, and move right trying to figure out where you draw the line.

But it's not even a response to a medical question I might ask. It's so far off the wall, I don't know how you would handle a basic medical issue. [answered later]

In any case, you've got to do some thinking for yourself and use some judgement. I have a feeling you will trust a scientist, because you think they're using science. But you still have to trust the person first. If they tell you to do something ridiculous you will probably not trust them.

Here's the thing: the anti-vax misinformation is based largely on social media chatter with zero provenance. You and Jack are trying to portray it as strong and healthy skepticism, but it's just not. People ARE being told ridiculous things by people they DON'T know the qualifications of, and in many cases don't actually even exist. This, "how do I know I can trust a scientist?" bit is just not the other side of the coin to that.

I'd kinda like to know how you learn to trust Dr. Faucci or your GP, but really what the issue is, is why are you trusting Russian Facebook crackpot spam?

If they tell you something that sounds plausible you might trust more.

Does "contageous vaccine dna shedding" sound plausible?

You'll want to know whether they have conflicts of interest. You'll want some convincing of some sort. You might get second opinions.

Maybe it is more likely that a scientist will be able to convince a person to take their advice. But you would be a fool to take it without deciding to trust them on that advice first.

That all sounds nice, but:
1. In reality most people don't do that.
2. Second opinion, right. The issue isn't how to trust one doctor over another, it's why are people trusting crackpots over their doctor.

 

[Jarvis323]

But it's not even a response to a medical question I might ask. It's so far off the wall, I don't know how you would handle a basic medical issue. [answered later]

Here's the thing: the anti-vax misinformation is based largely on social media chatter with zero provenance. You and Jack are trying to portray it as strong and healthy skepticism, but it's just not. People ARE being told ridiculous things by people they DON'T know the qualifications of, and in many cases don't actually even exist. This, "how do I know I can trust a scientist?" bit is just not the other side of the coin to that.

I'd kinda like to know how you learn to trust Dr. Faucci or your GP, but really what the issue is, is why are you trusting Russian Facebook crackpot spam?

Does "contageous vaccine dna shedding" sound plausible?

That all sounds nice, but:
1. In reality most people don't do that.
2. Second opinion, right. The issue isn't how to trust one doctor over another, it's why are people trusting crackpots over their doctor.

Ok, I think there is some confusion about what I was saying. I didn't mean to give credence to russian spambots, or anti-vaxers, or anyone. I am just in favor of skepticism in general. Obviously you should be way more skeptical of spammers than scientists.

The primary messenegers on vaccine science are mostly untrustworthy in my opinion. But that in and of itself doesn't mean the science on vaccines is untrustworthy.

Don't forget the FDA has been recently under fire for ignoring science and approving profitable and dangerous drugs that don't seem to work.

So it is kind if hard to blame vaccine skeptics. When the science we are relying on is at least sort of corrupted, the faith you expect everyday people to have in it will suffer.