And we have VAERS, to which individuals can report directly. Plus, the surveillance system (including our crappy contact tracing systems run by the states) means we get sub-hospitalization data. Ideally contact tracing would also help arrest spread (not so much if they call you 3 days after you test positive 3 days after you first show symptoms...sheesh), but at the very least you’re getting a survey done.
I think just from becoming aware of the surveillance and adverse event reporting systems, Valentine’s base for a high degree of skepticism is pretty shaky. Being armed with an understanding that actually, the mechanisms by which the data could be generated DO exist should help a lot. I want to note that when people exclaim we should trust the experts, I believe it is about this level of ignorance they rightly have in mind (props for identifying a knowledge gap and honestly seeking to address it!) - lacking key fundamental knowledge necessary to even begin to assess the veracity of claims, rely on the people who do have it! As we learned from the pandemic fiasco though, our “experts” having the ability to generate and interpret that information does not mean that they always do it well.
I’ll also say that even without ongoing adverse event monitoring or observational effectiveness studies, the clinical trials were gigantic and provide strong evidence supporting efficacy and safety. [Unless the researchers were selecting what data to collect in which case seeing the raw “data” would be meaningless too. Sadly, data tampering or fabrication happen, but if that fact will undermine your reliance on any data generated by anyone but you, frankly there’s no convincing you with other people’s data.] I’m not sure how large any selection biases are, but I imagine they would have to be huge to impeach such extensive data vs. a handful of anecdotes that are themselves not free of selection either.
I’d have to check, but I think it was the VAERS system that these folk were told to report to, and who turned down the data based on the circular logic I described in the OP.
But this is based on my recollection of that acronym looking familiar in this context. Don’t take that too seriously. Just a little seriously.
It seems unlikely to me that VAERS would not take the reports.
I think it’s more likely that they went to some doctor who works with 3 minutes per patient and the doctor didn’t want to take the time to fill the report.
Alternatively, maybe they tried to enter the data as nonmedical people and got told “You have to go to a doctor to have them file the data”?
And we have VAERS, to which individuals can report directly. Plus, the surveillance system (including our crappy contact tracing systems run by the states) means we get sub-hospitalization data. Ideally contact tracing would also help arrest spread (not so much if they call you 3 days after you test positive 3 days after you first show symptoms...sheesh), but at the very least you’re getting a survey done.
I think just from becoming aware of the surveillance and adverse event reporting systems, Valentine’s base for a high degree of skepticism is pretty shaky. Being armed with an understanding that actually, the mechanisms by which the data could be generated DO exist should help a lot. I want to note that when people exclaim we should trust the experts, I believe it is about this level of ignorance they rightly have in mind (props for identifying a knowledge gap and honestly seeking to address it!) - lacking key fundamental knowledge necessary to even begin to assess the veracity of claims, rely on the people who do have it! As we learned from the pandemic fiasco though, our “experts” having the ability to generate and interpret that information does not mean that they always do it well.
I’ll also say that even without ongoing adverse event monitoring or observational effectiveness studies, the clinical trials were gigantic and provide strong evidence supporting efficacy and safety. [Unless the researchers were selecting what data to collect in which case seeing the raw “data” would be meaningless too. Sadly, data tampering or fabrication happen, but if that fact will undermine your reliance on any data generated by anyone but you, frankly there’s no convincing you with other people’s data.] I’m not sure how large any selection biases are, but I imagine they would have to be huge to impeach such extensive data vs. a handful of anecdotes that are themselves not free of selection either.
Thanks.
I’d have to check, but I think it was the VAERS system that these folk were told to report to, and who turned down the data based on the circular logic I described in the OP.
But this is based on my recollection of that acronym looking familiar in this context. Don’t take that too seriously. Just a little seriously.
From an article about how VAERS works:
It seems unlikely to me that VAERS would not take the reports.
I think it’s more likely that they went to some doctor who works with 3 minutes per patient and the doctor didn’t want to take the time to fill the report.
Alternatively, maybe they tried to enter the data as nonmedical people and got told “You have to go to a doctor to have them file the data”?