Science Deniers Try to Take Over a Sarasota Public Hospital

[probinson]

What do vaccines have to do with the colour of your skin? I’ve no idea how you can compare choosing not to take a jab to being black.

Good grief, you don’t choose the colour of your skin.

Smh

Vaccination rates (and trust in public health authorities) is considerably lower in minority populations. Therefore, any vaccination mandate will unfairly discriminate against them. It's really not that hard to understand.

 

[probinson]

Black folks do not have as high vaccination rates in the US.

DC seems to be the only state planning to mandate Covid vaccine for schools. I've got to wonder whether they'll really do it. I think the results would be a mess. The number of people with boosters in DC is fairly small. Requiring just a primary dose doesn't seem all that useful.

Personally, I think they'll back off. I believe the political pressures of discriminating against 40% of black students will force them to change course.

 

[probinson]

They reduce infection severity

To some degree, yes, dependent upon factors mentioned earlier.

and transmission.

Why do you believe that? At the risk of being accused of "cherry-picking", let's take a look at South Korea, which currently has ~87% of their population fully vaccinated and another ~77% boosted. Surely if the vaccines reduce transmission, we'd see it here;

The line marks the beginning of the vaccination effort in South Korea, and as the graph shows, infection rates have NEVER declined back to pre-vaccination levels.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It does not, but that article is not the topic of this discussion.

I'm glad you have given up on that branch of your argument.

Funny choice of words. The vaccine zealotry is more like a religion than a representation of solid, evidence-based medicine.

So you say.

They have failed to prevent infection. That's what I've said all through this discussion.

You have also said the because it has failed to prevent all infections, it should be considered an overall failure. You have made quite a point of the importance of that conclusion - importance that you have worked overtime to establish.

Those modeling studies do amuse me.

Now you deny statistical conclusions that are very clear to medical professionals. Yes, the vaccines have saves hundreds of thousands of lives. Those modeling studies are well-founded. They are not mere amusements.

Nonsense. They have been absolutely driven by political expediency.

Remember when the CDC floated the idea of a second booster for everyone, and the Washington Post reported on it, and then other countries health agencies came out and said there was no compelling data that a second booster would be beneficial for anyone over the age of 50, and once public opinion soured on the second booster, they scrapped the plan? Yeah, that's not science. It's public relations.

You are speculating that the CDC declined to follow through on their "floated" idea of a second booster merely because of public response and not because of medical consensus. That is pure speculation with no support other than a coincidence.

For some people, yes. For others, not so much.

For most people, covid is a more serious matter than eating a medium well done steak.

The CDC has sold their credibility all throughout the pandemic.

So you have labored to convince people of. They have been more credible overall than any of the various groups that have demeaned their credibility. When someone says a lie often enough, it starts being believed by those whose ideology that belief supports.

Trust in the agency is at historic lows. I can promise you that's not because I discredited them...

Not you personally, but the group that shares your ideology of discrediting authorities. It gives people a sense of superiority to think they know better than the experts, so it is a very appealing ideology. So it is understandable that so many people have been taken in by it.

That may be, but you sure do seem to be downplaying the conflict of interest here.

Would it be better if pharmaceutical companies did not operate for a profit, relying on charity? I don't think there would be much incentive for innovation if we removed all chance for investment and profits. That's capitalism for you. Aren't you supportive of capitalism? Or would you rather try communism and see what that system develops in the way of vaccines?

Do you really think that Pfizer wants you to be healthy and protected for COVID, or do you think they want you to subscribe to their quarterly vaccination program for life?

Companies care a lot about their reputation and are sensitive to competition. Pfizer does not want to take the chance that someone else will develop an even better vaccine. So they have an incentive to develop the most effective vaccine they can. That's another benefit of the marketplace.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Vaccination rates (and trust in public health authorities) is considerably lower in minority populations. Therefore, any vaccination mandate will unfairly discriminate against them. It's really not that hard to understand.

A vaccine mandate is for the good of the population for which it is mandated. It does more good for that population than it does harm. In the case of minority population, despite that fact that they have had an (understandable) distrust of medical authorities, they are the ones who are most at risk for covid, having to work in service jobs that require more public contact than rich folks who are more likely to be able to work from home. The minority population is more in need of vaccinations than the general population. So I would not call it discrimination.

 

[probinson]

You have also said the because it has failed to prevent all infections, it should be considered an overall failure. You have made quite a point of the importance of that conclusion - importance that you have worked overtime to establish.

Huh? Where did I say that?

Now you deny statistical conclusions that are very clear to medical professionals. Yes, the vaccines have saves hundreds of thousands of lives.

Sure they have.

Those modeling studies are well-founded. They are not mere amusements.

They are quite amusing. Step 1. Create Vaccine. Step 2. Mandate it. Step 3. Commission study that uses all kinds of assumptions to "prove" that it saved lives. Brilliant!

These are kind of like the modeling studies that predicted armageddon scenarios that never came to fruition at the beginning of the pandemic.

Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed

You are speculating that the CDC declined to follow through on their "floated" idea of a second booster merely because of public response and not because of medical consensus. That is pure speculation with no support other than a coincidence.

Well OK. Do you really think the CDC would come right out and say, "Just wanted to let you know that we're floating the idea of a booster to see how the public feels about it." But that's sure what it looked like. Just take a look at this article from the July 11 Washington Post;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07/11/biden-officials-second-booster-shots-all-adults/

For most people, covid is a more serious matter than eating a medium well done steak.

Again, that depends on the person. I'm not sure why you continually ignore and/or downplay the age-stratification of the risks of COVID.

So you have labored to convince people of. They have been more credible overall than any of the various groups that have demeaned their credibility. When someone says a lie often enough, it starts being believed by those whose ideology that belief supports.

I don't have to convince anyone. Just take a look at how credible people think the CDC is;

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/11/cdc...ing-mask-guidance-ex-obama-official-says.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthc...rutiny-to-restore-americans-trust-in-science/

Poll Finds Public Health Has A Trust Problem

Opinion | Can Public Health Be Saved?

Opinion | Fauci and the CDC Undermined Public Trust

The CDC's latest blunder is really about trust, not masks

NBC News poll: Who do Americans trust on the virus?

U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren't ‘Following the Science,’ Officials Say

Not you personally, but the group that shares your ideology of discrediting authorities. It gives people a sense of superiority to think they know better than the experts, so it is a very appealing ideology. So it is understandable that so many people have been taken in by it.

Interesting. What do you think my "ideology" is, exactly?

Would it be better if pharmaceutical companies did not operate for a profit, relying on charity? I don't think there would be much incentive for innovation if we removed all chance for investment and profits. That's capitalism for you. Aren't you supportive of capitalism? Or would you rather try communism and see what that system develops in the way of vaccines?

This is a tricky area to be sure. Yes, there needs to be financial incentive for successful innovation, but there also needs to be objective regulatory oversight to ensure the efficacy and safety of vaccination. That's why regulatory capture is such a concern.

Companies care a lot about their reputation and are sensitive to competition.

Speaking of reputation, did you know that Pfizer paid the largest medical settlement in US history for FRAUD? What a great reputation!

American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. (hereinafter together "Pfizer") have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today.

Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History​

Of course, that was way back in 2009. I'm sure they've learned their lesson and are much better now. They'd never do anything fraudulent with these vaccines.

Oh, what's that you say? A BMJ whistleblower called into question data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccines trial? Shocking!

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial

 

[LeafByNiggle]

To some degree, yes, dependent upon factors mentioned earlier.
Why do you believe that? At the risk of being accused of "cherry-picking", let's take a look at South Korea, which currently has ~87% of their population fully vaccinated and another ~77% boosted. Surely if the vaccines reduce transmission, we'd see it here.

Your assumption that "surely we would see it here" in incorrect. To draw that conclusion you would have to have two countries like South Korea, identical in every way, except for the use of vaccines. As it is you are using two time periods in the same country to make the comparison. This neglects all the potential time-based variables. For instance, the biggest rise in infection rates is coincident with the arrival of the Omicron variant, which is more transmissible than previous variants. Also you are neglecting the effect of other measures South Korea was taking before vaccines were available. Read about how South Korea handled the pandemic here. As you can see, South Korea was a real success story among the nations. Even today the total covid death toll in South Korea is 0.05% of their population, while the total covid death toll in the US is 0.31% of the US population. That's six times the South Korea rate. It is due partly to vaccines, but also to the non-pharmaceutical mitigations, like masks, social distancing, and selective regulation of gathers of crowds. Under such conditions it is hard to isolate the effect of vaccines in two time periods. Also, it should be noted that your graph uses the log scale, which might not be apparent to everyone. The linear scale is more intuitive for most people. If you had selected the linear scale we would have seen that covid cases have been remarkably low, except for a large spike in March and another rise this August.

 

[probinson]

A vaccine mandate is for the good of the population for which it is mandated. It does more good for that population than it does harm.

That's historical revisionism, which I'll show below;

In the case of minority population, despite that fact that they have had an (understandable) distrust of medical authorities, they are the ones who are most at risk for covid, having to work in service jobs that require more public contact than rich folks who are more likely to be able to work from home. The minority population is more in need of vaccinations than the general population. So I would not call it discrimination.

You can call it whatever you want to try to make yourself feel better, but it is discrimination.

In January 2008, the ACLU published a pandemic preparedness plan that said this (emphasis added);

Lessons from History
American history contains vivid reminders that grafting the values of law enforcement and national security onto public health is both ineffective and dangerous. Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have justified abuses of state power. Highly discriminatory and forcible vaccination and quarantine measures adopted in response to outbreaks of the plague and smallpox over the past century have consistently accelerated rather than slowed the spread of disease, while fomenting public distrust and, in some cases, riots.

The lessons from history should be kept in mind whenever we are told by government officials that “tough,” liberty-limiting actions are needed to protect us from dangerous diseases. Specifically:

• Coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities.

• On the other hand, effective, preventive strategies that rely on voluntary participation do work. Simply put, people do not want to contract smallpox, influenza or other dangerous diseases. They want positive government help in avoiding and treating disease. As long as public officials are working to help people rather than to punish them, people are likely to engage willingly in any and all efforts to keep their families and communities healthy.

• Minorities and other socially disadvantaged populations tend to bear the brunt of tough public health measures.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_report.pdf
​

So you see, it was known and knowable that all of this mandating of vaccination would be counterproductive. And discriminatory. And because we did not heed these lessons from history, here we are again.

 

[probinson]

Your assumption that "surely we would see it here" in incorrect.

Really? You think in a nation with ~87% of its people vaccinated and ~77% of its people boosted, it's not a fair assessment to look at infection levels to determine if vaccines have slowed transmission?

To draw that conclusion you would have to have two countries like South Korea, identical in every way, except for the use of vaccines.

Ah. NOW you want an RCT. When it comes to pseudoscientific nonsense like masking and social distancing, observational studies are fine and dandy, but when it comes to observing vaccine efficacy to prevent disease transmission, time to break out the RCTs!

As it is you are using two time periods in the same country to make the comparison. This neglects all the potential time-based variables.

Interesting that you don't hold these same standards for other mitigation measures.

For instance, the biggest rise in infection rates is coincident with the arrival of the Omicron variant, which is more transmissible than previous variants. Also you are neglecting the effect of other measures South Korea was taking before vaccines were available. Read about how South Korea handled the pandemic here. As you can see, South Korea was a real success story among the nations. Even today the total covid death toll in South Korea is 0.05% of their population, while the total covid death toll in the US is 0.31% of the US population. That's six times the South Korea rate. It is due partly to vaccines, but also to the non-pharmaceutical mitigations, like masks, social distancing, and selective regulation of gathers of crowds.

Why no demand for RCTs here? You're just pretending like these mitigation measures are the reason there was less spread, but oddly, you're not saying that we need to have two identical South Koreas identical in every way except with the NPIs implemented.

Under such conditions it is hard to isolate the effect of vaccines in two time periods. Also, it should be noted that your graph uses the log scale, which might not be apparent to everyone.

The log scale was chosen because it shows an increasing trend in infection rate, not from the time new variants were introduced, but from day one of vaccination.

The linear scale is more intuitive for most people. If you had selected the linear scale we would have seen that covid cases have been remarkably low, except for a large spike in March and another rise this August.

Which skyrocketed the "success story" of South Korea far past many nations, including the United States, in number of infections, and they're still on an almost vertical upward trend in infections;

So why this massive increase in infections? South Korea is more highly vaccinated than the US, and we've been told all throughout the pandemic that they were such a success story because they did "the right things" with NPIs. So why have their infections shot up so high?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Huh? Where did I say that?

I am glad to hear that I was mistaken, and you do not think the point you have been laboring to make - that vaccines do not prevent all infections - is not all that important.

Sure they have.

Glad to hear that you agree with me on this point too.

They are quite amusing. Step 1. Create Vaccine. Step 2. Mandate it. Step 3. Commission study that uses all kinds of assumptions to "prove" that it saved lives. Brilliant!

pure speculation that the steps you outline were what actually happened without actually establishing any effectiveness at saving lives. All public health officials agree that the vaccines have saved lives. But they are only "authorities", and I realize that your ideology distrusts authorities.

Well OK. Do you really think the CDC would come right out and say, "Just wanted to let you know that we're floating the idea of a booster to see how the public feels about it." But that's sure what it looked like. Just take a look at this article from the July 11 Washington Post;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07/11/biden-officials-second-booster-shots-all-adults/

Oh, I see you misrepresented the story earlier. The CDC is not the organization that floated the idea. It was white house officials. That makes the CDC look a lot more credible, doesn't it? You can't blame CDC scientists for floating the idea. It wasn't even them!

I don't have to convince anyone. Just take a look at how credible people think the CDC is;

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/11/cdc...ing-mask-guidance-ex-obama-official-says.html

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthc...rutiny-to-restore-americans-trust-in-science/

Poll Finds Public Health Has A Trust Problem

Opinion | Can Public Health Be Saved?

Opinion | Fauci and the CDC Undermined Public Trust

The CDC's latest blunder is really about trust, not masks

NBC News poll: Who do Americans trust on the virus?

U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren't ‘Following the Science,’ Officials Say

Most of these are polls, which just show how appealing the rejection of authority is. Others are right-wing opinion pieces, cherry picked. The CNBC article was from a tumultuous period when mask mandates were evolving. There was a lot for the CDC to do, and they were possibly overtaxed by the pandemic. They were slow to update the guidance to a population that was impatient for definitive answers. Sometimes definitive answers are slow to come by. That still does not mean that the CDC should not be the most trusted source of medical information - certainly better than rants by Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones. To this day doctors trust the CDC over any other comparable source.

Interesting. What do you think my "ideology" is, exactly?

It seems to be the distrust of scientific authorities.

This is a tricky area to be sure. Yes, there needs to be financial incentive for successful innovation, but there also needs to be objective regulatory oversight to ensure the efficacy and safety of vaccination. That's why regulatory capture is such a concern.

I thought you were a conservative. And here you are arguing for more industry regulation? Welcome to the club! Actually the pharmaceutical industry is regulated more than even the airline industry (as it should be.)

Speaking of reputation, did you know that Pfizer paid the largest medical settlement in US history for FRAUD? What a great reputation!

And this tidbit is relevant somehow?

Of course, that was way back in 2009. I'm sure they've learned their lesson and are much better now. They'd never do anything fraudulent with these vaccines.

It was for off-label promotion. That is very different from misrepresenting safety and effectiveness studies, which by the way are very closely reviewed by the government.

Oh, what;'s that you say? A BMJ whistleblower called into question data integrity issues in Pfizer's vaccines trial? Shocking!

Corrective action was taken. The resulting studies were reliable. Subsequent experience confirms their findings.

 

[Pommer]

I had a friend who was “into” model railroading.
I liked to visit and run the trains.
But he almost never did so, because he was always tinkering with a new track section, or modeling a mountain or any number of the other things that one finds the need to do to “enjoy” the hobby fully.
I liked to run the trains.

I don’t often participate in “vaccine” threads because the battle lines have been set for some time and only the particulars need to be sussed-out, though I do find them informative.

I’m also very glad that people feel the need to take up the mantel and fight the good fight for “their side”.

I just want the vaccines to be “pretty good”; better than not trying to do anything, (or making things worse). They’re probably going to make things worse for a tiny, tiny minority of people who get them, yes, and there are compensation programs for “adverse reactions”.
But mostly they do good.

And I do appreciate the hard and serious work that are done in these threads to inform the rest of us…and given a slight variation in the information I have seen might have been with the researchers on this one but overall I’m fat & happy with this batch of vaccines.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Your inability to see ‘science’ is no metric of its presence or lack thereof.

this is not about ability or inability to see anything , you are being unnecessarily persnickety

 

[Larniavc]

this is not about ability or inability to see anything , you are being unnecessarily persnickety

Essentially you are making an argument from incredulity.

 

[Larniavc]

Why do you believe that?

Because if someone is coughing and spluttering the rate of infection is dramatically reduced. And if the mild symptom person wears a mask transmission drops even further.

 

[KCfromNC]

Do you only care about the time periods in "the research", or are you interested in real-world results?

I notice this post attempts to turn the conversation to me rather than address the flip-flopping between admitting that research shows that vaccines do slow the spread of covid and pretending that they "completely failed to slow the spread of COVID".

 

[KCfromNC]

Of course a study that lays out parameters of what is being studied isn't going to say anything about other time periods.

Then why are you claiming that the study showed that the vaccine's effectiveness was "limited to just a few months over a year ago."?

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't believe that's true for a minute.

Your previous posts admitted that's what the data showed. What else do those posts contain that we're not supposed to believe?

 

[KCfromNC]

Why do you believe that? At the risk of being accused of "cherry-picking", let's take a look at South Korea, which currently has ~87% of their population fully vaccinated and another ~77% boosted. Surely if the vaccines reduce transmission, we'd see it here

What exactly would you expect to see if vaccines did reduce the spread vs. if they didn't? What data are you using to generate the baseline expectations for a fully unvaccinated population, and how does it compare to what was actually seen? What's the statistical significance of the result from this one country?

Since you've got the data to overturn what the world's scientific and medical field knows about vaccination, let's help firm things up before you publish your results.

 

[KCfromNC]

Really? You think in a nation with ~87% of its people vaccinated and ~77% of its people boosted, it's not a fair assessment to look at infection levels to determine if vaccines have slowed transmission?

"Lowered" implies a comparison of one set of data to another, and yet we're only being provided with one set of data. What data are you comparing to which leads to the conclusion that transmission is or isn't lowered?

 

[probinson]

I am glad to hear that I was mistaken, and you do not think the point you have been laboring to make - that vaccines do not prevent all infections - is not all that important.

No, I think it's incredibly important to be honest about the expectations of the vaccine, especially since its inability to prevent infections and transmission completely nullifies any justification for a mandate of any kind.

pure speculation that the steps you outline were what actually happened without actually establishing any effectiveness at saving lives. All public health officials agree that the vaccines have saved lives. But they are only "authorities", and I realize that your ideology distrusts authorities.

Actually, my "ideology" distrusts people who have proven themselves untrustworthy. And while you're trying to make it sound like a consensus exists, there're are plenty of public health officials that question the overall efficacy of the vaccines. Perhaps they've "saved lives", but much like the vaccine was oversold on its efficacy to prevent infections, the models have severely overestimated the number of lives saved.

Oh, I see you misrepresented the story earlier. The CDC is not the organization that floated the idea. It was white house officials. That makes the CDC look a lot more credible, doesn't it? You can't blame CDC scientists for floating the idea. It wasn't even them!

It's kind of funny that you think the CDC isn't a political agency tied directly to the White House.

Most of these are polls, which just show how appealing the rejection of authority is. Others are right-wing opinion pieces, cherry picked. The CNBC article was from a tumultuous period when mask mandates were evolving. There was a lot for the CDC to do, and they were possibly overtaxed by the pandemic. They were slow to update the guidance to a population that was impatient for definitive answers. Sometimes definitive answers are slow to come by. That still does not mean that the CDC should not be the most trusted source of medical information - certainly better than rants by Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones. To this day doctors trust the CDC over any other comparable source.

Yeah, that's not quite true either;

Out of nearly 2,000 U.S. nurses surveyed on Medscape (WebMD's sister site for health care professionals) between May 25 and June 3, 77% said their trust in the CDC has decreased since the start of the pandemic, and 51% said their trust in the FDA has decreased. Similarly, out of nearly 450 U.S. doctors surveyed in the same time period, 77% said their trust in the CDC has decreased and 48% said their trust in the FDA has decreased.

Health care professionals have been critical of these agencies’ decisions during the pandemic, with some concerned that their work has been politicized.

“I do not question, doubt or disagree with the mission(s) of the agencies,” one nurse wrote in a comment on the Medscape poll. “I do (within the last 2 years) question the degree to which leaders of those institutions are able to truly implement scientifically sound and public health-centric recommendations and practices free from political influence and bias.”

Trust in CDC, FDA Took a Beating During Pandemic​

You can try to wave away the fact that the CDC has a trust problem, but it won't make it go away. And without trust, public health cannot be effective.

It seems to be the distrust of scientific authorities.

I suspect you and I would differ immensely on what constitutes "scientific authorities".

I thought you were a conservative

I'm an independent with conservative leanings.

And here you are arguing for more industry regulation? Welcome to the club!

Actually, I'm saying that pharmaceutical companies should be made to prove efficacy of their drugs through rigorous, evidence-based medicine. Since the introduction of the EUA for vaccines, "regulation" of the vaccines has become something of a joke. Instead of looking at clinical outcomes to determine if the vaccines really are effective, regulatory agencies have only required an increased antibody level, even though they know the increased antibodies are transient, and it's not clear that increased antibodies equates to higher protection. The bar for these vaccines is incredibly low.

Actually the pharmaceutical industry is regulated more than even the airline industry (as it should be.)

Not really. The FDA has acted more like a PR wing for Pfizer and Moderna than an independent regulatory agency. And with the revolving door that exists between pharmaceutical companies and the regulators, regulatory capture is a real problem.

And this tidbit is relevant somehow?

Sure it is. You were the one that brought up "reputation".

It was for off-label promotion. That is very different from misrepresenting safety and effectiveness studies, which by the way are very closely reviewed by the government.

It was for FRAUD;

Pfizer promoted the sale of Bextra for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns.​

Far more than just "off-label promotion", they promoted uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined due to safety concerns. It was you who brought up how much Pfizer cares about their reputation. But it seems they care more about being able to sell their product, regardless of "safety concerns", in a fraudulent manner if it means more profits.

​

Corrective action was taken.

Do tell. What corrective actions were taken as a result of this whistleblower?

The resulting studies were reliable. Subsequent experience confirms their findings.

Actually, the findings were that there was a 95% reduction in infections, which has been proven to be completely false.