Do you have a tldr on why we might think anti-vaxxers were right for the right reasons? Seems like the default positions are “vaccines have obviously worked in the past and we’re pretty sure they’re gonna work in very similar ways today”, and I haven’t seen anything that changes my opinion much about either of those defaults.
Regardless of the general point, I think you’re making a noncentral fallacy here. This vaccine differs from the vaccine archetype for multiple reasons: it uses a new, different technology, it was rushed and we have no hindsight on its long-term side effects, it does not offer as strong a protection as expected from a typical vaccine (in particular, not strong enough to eradicate the virus even if it had maximum coverage), it’s used at the height of a pandemic with the risk of creating variants through recombination, the potential market has never been this huge, thus increasing the incentive for foul play. This is not a typical get-1-shot-go-carefree-for-10-years vaccine.
we have no hindsight on its long-term side effects
That’s going to be true of any new vaccine too, which isn’t helpful for deciding whether to create or use any new vaccine. (But we do have “hindsight” on every other vaccine.)
it does not offer as strong a protection as expected from a typical vaccine
We could play some reference class tennis with this one as I don’t think we’ve ever had a vaccine for a virus similar to this one. And it seems arguably reasonable to consider the ‘flu vaccine’ as ‘typical’ and that (those) seem to offer even less protection than these.
the potential market has never been this huge, thus increasing the incentive for foul play.
What do you mean by this exactly? That the “potential market” possibly includes everyone? That doesn’t seem to be that different than for other vaccinations, tho maybe you do have a point given that we’re all in the middle of a global pandemic, whereas more ‘typical vaccinations’ only have a ‘market’ for some narrow age cohort.
This is not a typical get-1-shot-go-carefree-for-10-years vaccine.
And it seems arguably reasonable to consider the ‘flu vaccine’ as ‘typical’ and that (those) seem to offer even less protection than these.
Which is why when someone wants to impress you with the historical track record of vaccines, the flu vaccine conspicuously remains out of the picture.
What do you mean by this exactly? That the “potential market” possibly includes everyone? That doesn’t seem to be that different than for other vaccinations
I guess maybe some other vaccines have a near-worldwide cover. Note that since world population and GDP has always been going up, every new global pandemic creates de facto an unprecedented huge potential market. Though not by much. So, I don’t know?
Ok, so at this point maybe we can agree that:
1/ The COVID vaccine is less efficacious than touted last year, when the population was convinced to wait and expect salvation from it.
But:
2/ Strangely, 1) does not seem to have led policy/opinion makers to shift their bets on other horses or mellow their speech. Actually, pro-vaccination speakers have greatly radicalized this year, now advocating more and more openly shaming and punishment of unvaccinated people.
That looks something like Evaporative Cooling of Group Beliefs if the cult was so powerful it could punish dissenders. And I’m honestly frightened by that.
2/ Strangely, 1) does not seem to have led policy/opinion makers to shift their bets on other horses or mellow their speech. Actually, pro-vaccination speakers have greatly radicalized this year, now advocating more and more openly shaming and punishment of unvaccinated people.
That looks something like Evaporative Cooling of Group Beliefs if the cult was so powerful it could punish dissenders. And I’m honestly frightened by that.
I agree that this is a Sad own-goal – politicizing the vaccination efforts – but that’s because I’m convinced that the vaccines are pretty effective.
But I don’t think it’s actually ‘strange’ that this happened; Sad, yes, but not strange (or thus unexpected).
Do you have a tldr on why we might think anti-vaxxers were right for the right reasons? Seems like the default positions are “vaccines have obviously worked in the past and we’re pretty sure they’re gonna work in very similar ways today”, and I haven’t seen anything that changes my opinion much about either of those defaults.
Regardless of the general point, I think you’re making a noncentral fallacy here. This vaccine differs from the vaccine archetype for multiple reasons: it uses a new, different technology, it was rushed and we have no hindsight on its long-term side effects, it does not offer as strong a protection as expected from a typical vaccine (in particular, not strong enough to eradicate the virus even if it had maximum coverage), it’s used at the height of a pandemic with the risk of creating variants through recombination, the potential market has never been this huge, thus increasing the incentive for foul play. This is not a typical get-1-shot-go-carefree-for-10-years vaccine.
That’s going to be true of any new vaccine too, which isn’t helpful for deciding whether to create or use any new vaccine. (But we do have “hindsight” on every other vaccine.)
We could play some reference class tennis with this one as I don’t think we’ve ever had a vaccine for a virus similar to this one. And it seems arguably reasonable to consider the ‘flu vaccine’ as ‘typical’ and that (those) seem to offer even less protection than these.
What do you mean by this exactly? That the “potential market” possibly includes everyone? That doesn’t seem to be that different than for other vaccinations, tho maybe you do have a point given that we’re all in the middle of a global pandemic, whereas more ‘typical vaccinations’ only have a ‘market’ for some narrow age cohort.
Yes, this, sadly, seems to be very much the case.
Which is why when someone wants to impress you with the historical track record of vaccines, the flu vaccine conspicuously remains out of the picture.
I guess maybe some other vaccines have a near-worldwide cover. Note that since world population and GDP has always been going up, every new global pandemic creates de facto an unprecedented huge potential market. Though not by much. So, I don’t know?
Ok, so at this point maybe we can agree that:
1/ The COVID vaccine is less efficacious than touted last year, when the population was convinced to wait and expect salvation from it.
But:
2/ Strangely, 1) does not seem to have led policy/opinion makers to shift their bets on other horses or mellow their speech. Actually, pro-vaccination speakers have greatly radicalized this year, now advocating more and more openly shaming and punishment of unvaccinated people.
That looks something like Evaporative Cooling of Group Beliefs if the cult was so powerful it could punish dissenders. And I’m honestly frightened by that.
I agree that this is a Sad own-goal – politicizing the vaccination efforts – but that’s because I’m convinced that the vaccines are pretty effective.
But I don’t think it’s actually ‘strange’ that this happened; Sad, yes, but not strange (or thus unexpected).