Thanks for voicing some of the things I thought better than I ever could.
I’ve noticed a trend on LW of cheap jabs at “anti-vaxxers”. To me this seems like a partisan label which just makes it harder to voice legitimate concerns about vaccines. Like any medical treatment, we should ask:
how bad is the disease it’s meant to ward off?
how much is it gonna cost? (and who’s gonna pay)
how efficient is it?
do we know the side effects?
That said, AstraZeneca abandoning a vaccine for one patient with an adverse reaction seems absurd. I notice I am confused, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t the whole story.
Prediction: even if vitamin D (or HCQ) is proven to greatly reduce mortality, I don’t think there will be any consensus outside scientific circles. The matter has been far too politicised for any side to back out.
To me this seems like a partisan label which just makes it harder to voice legitimate concerns about vaccines.
I don’t think that’s the case and I do happen to be a person who raised legitimate concerns about vaccines in the past.
do we know the side effects?
That’s not a good question. We never know all the side-effects. We make decisions in uncertainty and have to think about the expected value of our decisions given the uncertainty that we have.
That said, AstraZeneca abandoning a vaccine for one patient with an adverse reaction seems absurd.
Clinical trials are a heavily regulated domain which rules that are not made for fast development of new drugs.
I don’t think that’s the case and I do happen to be a person who raised legitimate concerns about vaccines in the past.
So you don’t mind being called an anti-vaxxer? Maybe in the US it’s not a big deal, but in France where I am, you might as well be called a flat-earther.
We never know all the side-effects. We make decisions in uncertainty and have to think about the expected value of our decisions given the uncertainty that we have.
Of course. That shouldn’t keep us from doing our best to find out the side effects in the time we have, and to keep searching afterward. And to use that knowlegde when wheighing the benefit/risk ratio of the treatment.
Nobody has called me an anti-vaxxer. Generally, I’m more concerned with giving anti-vaxxers who don’t care for science more ammunition then I’m concerned with being called that term.
The danger of people dying because I wasn’t careful with qualifying criticism is much more serious then getting called a name.
That shouldn’t keep us from doing our best to find out the side effects in the time we have
How serious are you? What sounds to me like babble.
Calling for doing our best basically means doing a lot of human challenge trials for which people like me and Zvi called for months ago. The current consensus is that most people don’t want to do our best to search for side effects in the time that we have but rather want to follow traditional research processes.
Thanks for voicing some of the things I thought better than I ever could.
I’ve noticed a trend on LW of cheap jabs at “anti-vaxxers”. To me this seems like a partisan label which just makes it harder to voice legitimate concerns about vaccines. Like any medical treatment, we should ask:
how bad is the disease it’s meant to ward off?
how much is it gonna cost? (and who’s gonna pay)
how efficient is it?
do we know the side effects?
That said, AstraZeneca abandoning a vaccine for one patient with an adverse reaction seems absurd. I notice I am confused, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t the whole story.
Prediction: even if vitamin D (or HCQ) is proven to greatly reduce mortality, I don’t think there will be any consensus outside scientific circles. The matter has been far too politicised for any side to back out.
I don’t think that’s the case and I do happen to be a person who raised legitimate concerns about vaccines in the past.
That’s not a good question. We never know all the side-effects. We make decisions in uncertainty and have to think about the expected value of our decisions given the uncertainty that we have.
Clinical trials are a heavily regulated domain which rules that are not made for fast development of new drugs.
So you don’t mind being called an anti-vaxxer? Maybe in the US it’s not a big deal, but in France where I am, you might as well be called a flat-earther.
Of course. That shouldn’t keep us from doing our best to find out the side effects in the time we have, and to keep searching afterward. And to use that knowlegde when wheighing the benefit/risk ratio of the treatment.
Nobody has called me an anti-vaxxer. Generally, I’m more concerned with giving anti-vaxxers who don’t care for science more ammunition then I’m concerned with being called that term.
The danger of people dying because I wasn’t careful with qualifying criticism is much more serious then getting called a name.
How serious are you? What sounds to me like babble.
Calling for doing our best basically means doing a lot of human challenge trials for which people like me and Zvi called for months ago. The current consensus is that most people don’t want to do our best to search for side effects in the time that we have but rather want to follow traditional research processes.