“I’ve been reading…” That was the response I received from one of the staffers of Skeptic magazine when I asked why she wasn’t vaccinated. My query came on the saddest day in our 30-year history—we… (from the article).
Look, I largely agree with the author on COVID vaccines- the cost-benefit analysis largely supports getting vaccinated- although for younger people the evidence is less clear. At under thirty the risks from Astra Zeneca somewhat outweigh the risks from the vaccine, and, although the risk thresholds for Moderna and Pfizer are much lower, they tend to be weighted towards those with the strongest immune responses, the young. Research desperately needs to be done to compare risks from vaccines to risks from COVID for the young- the Pfizer study is the only one of its kind so far.
In particular, a number of scientists and medical experts have made the case that, because children have more adaptive immune systems, with resistance to coronavirus infections embedded in their immune system (which adults lose), it may be the case that natural immunity in children may be more adaptive to future COVID strains, with repeated exposure to the virus. Unfortunately, most governments and public health institutions have taken the position that the reduced chances of children spreading COVID with vaccination represents a compelling argument for children to get vaccinated.
Not only is the scientific thinking faulty here, based upon assumptions built into models which have been proven wrong time and again, but it also raises very genuine questions of medical ethics. In particular, the JCVI in the UK has been somewhat reluctant to embrace vaccinations for children, although unfortunately the UK government has recently reversed its position, purely on the basis of the reduced risk of virus spread which children pose, when vaccinated.
This should ring alarm bells, because although the British Medical and Scientific Establishment has demonstrated flaws of its own in relation to trans kids and the need for the consultation of non-ideological clinicians prior to making life-changing decisions, they have at least shown greater institutional integrity in resolving not to bow to the political or cultural pressures, in the interests of their patients.
But there are a couple of points which need rebutting. First, the psychology of trying to convince conservatives and libertarians to get vaccinated has been botched from the start. The absolute worst thing that media or politicians could suggest- if trying to get these two groups to get vaccinated- is the threat of government force and coercion. It's tantamount to telling Democrats that the vaccine program will be run by the fossil fuel industry, on a for profit basis.
Plus, legacy media and even the CDC tarnished their reputation beyond recovery with conservatives. Declaring racism a public health emergency or claiming that BLM protests were perfectly safe, when clearly more peaceful 2A protests were a threat to public safety, smacked of partisanship- especially when 13 cases of unarmed Black men shot in one year by a total American police force of over 800,000 officers does not constitute a public health emergency (but is a tragedy), nor does differential rates of death and hospitalisation by ethnicity, when roughly 80% of the difference appears to be based upon genetics, epigenetics and dietary considerations (vitamin D deficiencies). For details, see the rates of hospitalisation and death per population amongst British Pakistani and British Hindu populations, which are genetically similar, but possess differing socio-economic profiles.
Add to that the fact that pre-vaccine lockdowns (excepting border lockdowns) appear to have proven largely ineffectual in combatting COVID spread- and the responses of both the politicians of the Left, and to a lesser extent, public health officials, have been throwing away whatever institutional credibility they once possessed. The Left may quibble on this point, citing Sweden compared to its neighbours, when a fairer comparison might be Spain or France, given their geographic and demographic profile- but in recent months Peru, with some of the harshest COVID lockdowns throughout the pandemic, have proven the false sense of security conveyed by lockdowns- with 5,893 deaths per million with an average age of 31, compared to 2,655 per million in Brazil, it is easy with hindsight to see just how ineffective lockdowns were.
To be fair, it is not that lockdowns were completely ineffective- in any population one will find the stubborn 5% committed to pursuing idiocy by any means necessary- but the effect of these fools was minimal at best. But evidence from the UK, with the first asymmetric wave not caused by a new variant, gives us a revelatory glimpse at what was really going on in relation to lockdowns and COVID non-compliance. It was not that lockdowns were completely ineffective-just marginal at best- for the simple reason that ordinary people exercising caution and good sense at the first signs of COVID cases in their locality, was far more effective at combatting COVID spread than government mandates ever could be.
With Freedom Day, and UEFA Euro 2021, us Brits abandoned our acquired caution, prudent adherence to local intelligence gathering and decided that the pandemic was officially over for a large proportion of us. Whether it was blokes alternately hugging and commiserating over the football, or young people returning to clubs in the hopes of getting laid- we collectively threw caution to the wind. It shows in the new cases data- although the peak has been passed for the moment, the usual precipitous fall in case numbers has not been evident- the behavioural economics have changed. In the first few weeks after July 19th, Freedom Day, people still continued to wear masks and social distance in shops and other enclosed spaces. In the past week or so, this has changed- a tipping point of social enforcement has been reached- and it will be interesting to see in 10 to 14 days time what the effect will be.
But generally you see my point- in America's hyper-partisan landscape there has been delusion on both sides, although with vaccinations, I would have to say that currently the misinformation on the Right in relation to vaccines is likely to be more inimical to life in the short-term, even though the economic damage caused by unnecessary lockdowns (other than the initial lockdowns, when we didn't know what we were dealing with) may well end up costing more lives, over time.
But just as many stubborn holdout Republicans need to revise their thinking on vaccines, Democrats need to acknowledge that we will never be COVID free again, with the current technology. If vaccinated, they need to overcome their irrational fear of COVID exposure- because there is simply no way way they will ever be able to live in the world again, other than as a complete lock-in, if they want to avoid the virus.
This article from Nature is illuminating, and shows that back in February many scientists fully expected COVID to become endemic. Even then, world-leading scientists were sceptical of us ever becoming COVID free. But with the new data on Delta and vaccine efficacy in preventing virus transmission, which shows that vaccinations is only 64% effective at preventing virus spread, this number is simply too low to confer herd immunity through vaccination. We could have 100% of population vaccinated and we would still see total numbers of cases close to their current levels in each wave.
All that is required is an understanding that it will be the immunity conferred by your vaccination which will limit the damage caused by COVID, not the actions of others. If we take an average person, with only a 100 regular contacts through their family or cohabiters, work, shopping requirements- going only one space removed from source- and it is easy to see the ability of viruses to explore multiple vectors to transmission and the mechanics of human distributed networks will mean the virus will always get through. If you daily extended contacts only one spreader instead of three, your immune system will dictate whether you suffer from COVID, not the vaccination status of others. There will be only three major effects from more widespread vaccination.
First, fewer people will die, be hospitalised or suffer long-term health consequences. It could be you or your family- and despite the fact that the media has not been forthcoming with information on negative side effects, the conservative distributed network of knowledgeable researchers has shown that even if the risks of infection or death are minimal, and your location protects you somewhat, vaccination with potential side effects is better than no vaccination at all, unless you are a child or under 25 with no comorbidities (where the issue is not settled).
Second, although the total number of cases in each wave will likely only dip slightly, it may well be that future waves may be less truncated, as the virus takes longer to explore potential vectors to its food supply. This may well put less pressure on medical services, and even have more positive outcomes in terms of other health conditions, such as cancer or heart disease- as freed capacity means serious medical issues can be dealt with in a timely fashion. Finally, it will prolong the derangement on the Left and amongst Democrats who will remain convinced, despite the mounting evidence, that higher rates of vaccination will somehow stop the relentless and unstoppable waves.
Here in the UK, we have benefited greatly from a lack of partisan bias driving the debate over COVID and vaccinations. Yes, we have our vaccine sceptics too (just far fewer of them), and there is a far more considerable contingent who have questioned the efficacy of lockdowns- sometimes irrationally, but also based upon growing empirical evidence. But for the most part we have followed mask mandates and social distancing when in enclosed spaces like shops or offices. Vaccine uptake is high, and we are the perfect testbed to see how effective higher rates of vaccination are at preventing virus spread, and, like the Israelis, the answer has been not very.
If you are a conservative and over forty I would get vaccinated. I would probably do the same above thirty. It's only below 25 where the issue becomes trickier, for the simple reason that the science isn't there yet. But if you want to have a real incentive for getting vaccinated- if vaccinated, you can travel to a Democrat city, not wear a mask or social distance, and when some whiny liberal starts to complain, you can tell them to shut-up because you've been vaccinated- and at this point there is simply no way of preventing COVID from becoming endemic. Not with Delta.
If only. The current trajectory here is mask mandates for everyone, vaccinated or not. And mandatory vaccination for everyone, down to at least 12 years old. And vaccination passports, even for interstate travel, eating in a restaurant, hell even showing your (masked) face in public. I have no fear of COVID, but I greatly fear that the loss of any semblance of freedom is the goal, not the consequence.
Arguing for or against COVID-19 vaccines is missing the point.
Vaccines and lockdowns for COVID-19 are the third and fourth best approach for protecting individuals from harm and death and for suppressing transmission. Masks, social distancing, sterilizing hands etc. are of marginal value, but are not decisive.
The first and best approach is to get most people's 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels to at least the 50ng/ml 125nmol/L level their immune systems need to function. This has numerous other health benefits as well. Without supplementation, most people's levels are 5 to 25ng/ml. Most MDs and government recommendations are for far too little D3 per day to attain proper levels. For 70kg bodyweight, 0.125mg 5000IU/day is a good amount. This will raise levels over several months. This is a gram every 22 years - and D3 costs USD$2.50 a gram ex-factory. People suffering from obesity need a higher ratio of D3 per kg bodyweight.
Bolus D3, such as 10mg 400,000IU (70kg bodyweight), is needed to raise levels quickly. The best approach in clinical emergencies such as COVID-19, Kawasaki disease, Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome and sepsis is to use (for 55 to 85kg bodyweight) a single 1mg oral dose of calcifediol - which is the pharma name for 25-hydroxyvitamin D. This takes 4 hours to attain the levels the immune system needs. D3 always takes longer, no matter how much is ingested, because it takes days for enzymes in the liver to convert it to circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6803351558714204160/ and https://vitamindstopscovid.info/04-calcifediol/ .
The mainstream MDs, immunologists, virologists and epidemiologists who are guiding most MDs and all governments in the increasingly desperate global, push for VACCINES! VACCINES!! VACCINES!!! are flying blind because they do not understand how the immune system needs much higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels than most people have without proper D3 supplementation.
There is very little D3 in food, including fortified food, or multivitamins. The skin can produce quite a lot of D3 with exposure to ultraviolet B light, but this damages DNA and so raises the risk of cancer. Vitamin D3 is a unique nutrient where a balanced diet won't help. The only answer (except for people who get arguably unhealthy levels of is UV-B skin exposure) is D3 supplementation, which is safe and inexpensive. I am 65, weigh 69kg and take 1.25mg 50,000IU D3 a week.
From its own description of itself, "Skeptical Inquirer is a bimonthly American general-audience magazine published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry with the subtitle: The Magazine for Science and Reason."
It is 'skeptical' inasmuch as it works to debunk scams, frauds, and various sorts of pseudoscience. They are not skeptical in the way some of us use the term, believing that there can always be some margin for doubt around 'generally accepted' knowledge. To the contrary, they are of the mindset that the scientific method should be able to resolve matters.
As you say, "legacy media and even the CDC tarnished their reputation beyond recovery with conservatives." It is far too clear that the authorities who say "trust the science" have contorted what they do and do not take into evidence. There is every reason to be skeptical of the conclusions they draw.
BTW, on masking the 'verdict' is in. The Texas Supreme Court has upheld the governor's order prohibiting local authorities (including public school districts) from requiring masking. This is breaking news, Sunday evening, Aug 15.
Would be curious to what you think of this. It does answer some of your questions. Might disagree with your overall assessment that vaccine hesitation is a right/libertarian problem. I know hard core MAGA people who where first in line for vaccine and know far left who will die on the no mask/vaccine hill. Not to mention black Americans as a percent is really low here.
You are quite right to point out the partisan division in the US. The compounding challenge here is the utter corruption of corporate media, science and academia; not to mention the weaponization of multiple government agencies. Pontius Pilate would feel right at home in our time.
I hate to hear the the medical community in GB is also succumbing to the spirit of the age. Western science is all but dead. Perhaps the new Dark Age will be better? I would like to think we could take a deep breath and step back from the edge, but I see no evidence of that happening.
We disagree on the advisability of the current vaccines among all but the high risk groups (age and co-morbidity) but I appreciate your perspective and measured approach on this topic. Our betters will get around to taking you down in due course owing to your defects on other fronts. Cheers.
Bro, you are killing it with these posts. But I question your ideological position here - you continue to try and appeal to a conservative audience. Why, on this issue? Conservatives are the demented demographic when it comes to vaccines. Super-spreader events continue to be conservative. We can debate the effectiveness of the vaccines, or we can do what science suggests we do - imperfectly, for sure. but better than acting with contempt for science.
'the economic damage caused by unnecessary lockdowns (other than the initial lockdowns, when we didn't know what we were dealing with) may well end up costing more lives, over time'.
yeah, maybe, i guess? what threat are you talking about though? like, your point is a super vague echo of a popular conservative talking point. how, exactly, is the lockdown costing lives? The last person who suggested this to me was talking about data related to deaths of despair, suicide, opiate addiction, etc. which, of course, are not causally related to the lockdowns, they are correlated. I'd like to see your evidence of the lockdowns killing people.
You were the one who convinced me to dig deeper into certain conclusions, and to consider demographic groups within demographic groups - so, specifically, the fact that liberal immigration policies harm the working poor. So why can't you do the deep dive on vaccinations, and identify that the vaccine hesitant Americans are causing most of the problems?
You identify as centrist. But your rhetoric is targeted at conservatives. Perhaps that's just the logical result of being a Quillette alumni.
'the absolute worst thing that media or politicians could suggest- if trying to get these two groups to get vaccinated- is the threat of government force and coercion. It's tantamount to telling Democrats that the vaccine program will be run by the fossil fuel industry, on a for profit basis'.
uh, no. in that the fossil fuel industry is objectively harmful, and vaccines aren't. so you expect rational pro-science types to have to appeal to conservative BS, but conservatives get to just hang out with MTG, spread the vaccine, and they get a pass? How bout we just mandate vaccines? It's happening in all sorts of industries. the army is mandating vaccines.
I don't get it. progressives have to consider conservative ideology, that harms others (we can debate the degree to which this happens, but it happens, obviously). but conservatives get a pass?
I think you, of all people, are perfectly positioned to call out BS on both sides. But you continue to focus on progressive BS. Both sides are dumb as shit. I want more people who thread the needle and make sense to both sides. You have inspired me on this front.
But you can only support conservatives over progressives, while claiming ideological neutrality, for so long, before your track record catches up to you. You may say you are not conservative, but your track record suggests that you are, at least, conservative sympathetic.
which is fine, of course. but I don't see you questioning conservative rhetoric the way you do progressive rhetoric.
I challenge you only because I respect you so much, for real. I'm back in the classroom come september, perhaps I could use some of your writing with the kids? I think that would be super cool.
If only. The current trajectory here is mask mandates for everyone, vaccinated or not. And mandatory vaccination for everyone, down to at least 12 years old. And vaccination passports, even for interstate travel, eating in a restaurant, hell even showing your (masked) face in public. I have no fear of COVID, but I greatly fear that the loss of any semblance of freedom is the goal, not the consequence.
Arguing for or against COVID-19 vaccines is missing the point.
Vaccines and lockdowns for COVID-19 are the third and fourth best approach for protecting individuals from harm and death and for suppressing transmission. Masks, social distancing, sterilizing hands etc. are of marginal value, but are not decisive.
The first and best approach is to get most people's 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels to at least the 50ng/ml 125nmol/L level their immune systems need to function. This has numerous other health benefits as well. Without supplementation, most people's levels are 5 to 25ng/ml. Most MDs and government recommendations are for far too little D3 per day to attain proper levels. For 70kg bodyweight, 0.125mg 5000IU/day is a good amount. This will raise levels over several months. This is a gram every 22 years - and D3 costs USD$2.50 a gram ex-factory. People suffering from obesity need a higher ratio of D3 per kg bodyweight.
Bolus D3, such as 10mg 400,000IU (70kg bodyweight), is needed to raise levels quickly. The best approach in clinical emergencies such as COVID-19, Kawasaki disease, Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome and sepsis is to use (for 55 to 85kg bodyweight) a single 1mg oral dose of calcifediol - which is the pharma name for 25-hydroxyvitamin D. This takes 4 hours to attain the levels the immune system needs. D3 always takes longer, no matter how much is ingested, because it takes days for enzymes in the liver to convert it to circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6803351558714204160/ and https://vitamindstopscovid.info/04-calcifediol/ .
The second approach is early treatment, with calcifediol (or bolus D3 if this is not available), ivermectin https://ivmmeta.com, melatonin https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0188440921001417 (I am yet to add this to my site) and possibly quercetin (used by Paul Marik and colleagues, along with ivermectin: https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/math-plus-protocol/ ). Vitamin C, B vitamins, zinc and magnesium are also important. I list these in the introduction to my site: https://vitamindstopscovid.info . Another early treatment used by Paul Marik and colleagues, and supported by this site https://www.treatearly.org is the prescription-only SSRI fluvoxamine.
The mainstream MDs, immunologists, virologists and epidemiologists who are guiding most MDs and all governments in the increasingly desperate global, push for VACCINES! VACCINES!! VACCINES!!! are flying blind because they do not understand how the immune system needs much higher circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels than most people have without proper D3 supplementation.
There is very little D3 in food, including fortified food, or multivitamins. The skin can produce quite a lot of D3 with exposure to ultraviolet B light, but this damages DNA and so raises the risk of cancer. Vitamin D3 is a unique nutrient where a balanced diet won't help. The only answer (except for people who get arguably unhealthy levels of is UV-B skin exposure) is D3 supplementation, which is safe and inexpensive. I am 65, weigh 69kg and take 1.25mg 50,000IU D3 a week.
From its own description of itself, "Skeptical Inquirer is a bimonthly American general-audience magazine published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry with the subtitle: The Magazine for Science and Reason."
It is 'skeptical' inasmuch as it works to debunk scams, frauds, and various sorts of pseudoscience. They are not skeptical in the way some of us use the term, believing that there can always be some margin for doubt around 'generally accepted' knowledge. To the contrary, they are of the mindset that the scientific method should be able to resolve matters.
As you say, "legacy media and even the CDC tarnished their reputation beyond recovery with conservatives." It is far too clear that the authorities who say "trust the science" have contorted what they do and do not take into evidence. There is every reason to be skeptical of the conclusions they draw.
BTW, on masking the 'verdict' is in. The Texas Supreme Court has upheld the governor's order prohibiting local authorities (including public school districts) from requiring masking. This is breaking news, Sunday evening, Aug 15.
https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2021/03/09/covid-is-not-a-hoax-but-the-numbers-are-a-look-at-the-first-flu-season-with-covid/
Would be curious to what you think of this. It does answer some of your questions. Might disagree with your overall assessment that vaccine hesitation is a right/libertarian problem. I know hard core MAGA people who where first in line for vaccine and know far left who will die on the no mask/vaccine hill. Not to mention black Americans as a percent is really low here.
Don't most people prefer being forced to act?
And why exactly aren't children approved to receive the vaccine already? Is there a problem?
You are quite right to point out the partisan division in the US. The compounding challenge here is the utter corruption of corporate media, science and academia; not to mention the weaponization of multiple government agencies. Pontius Pilate would feel right at home in our time.
I hate to hear the the medical community in GB is also succumbing to the spirit of the age. Western science is all but dead. Perhaps the new Dark Age will be better? I would like to think we could take a deep breath and step back from the edge, but I see no evidence of that happening.
We disagree on the advisability of the current vaccines among all but the high risk groups (age and co-morbidity) but I appreciate your perspective and measured approach on this topic. Our betters will get around to taking you down in due course owing to your defects on other fronts. Cheers.
Bro, you are killing it with these posts. But I question your ideological position here - you continue to try and appeal to a conservative audience. Why, on this issue? Conservatives are the demented demographic when it comes to vaccines. Super-spreader events continue to be conservative. We can debate the effectiveness of the vaccines, or we can do what science suggests we do - imperfectly, for sure. but better than acting with contempt for science.
'the economic damage caused by unnecessary lockdowns (other than the initial lockdowns, when we didn't know what we were dealing with) may well end up costing more lives, over time'.
yeah, maybe, i guess? what threat are you talking about though? like, your point is a super vague echo of a popular conservative talking point. how, exactly, is the lockdown costing lives? The last person who suggested this to me was talking about data related to deaths of despair, suicide, opiate addiction, etc. which, of course, are not causally related to the lockdowns, they are correlated. I'd like to see your evidence of the lockdowns killing people.
You were the one who convinced me to dig deeper into certain conclusions, and to consider demographic groups within demographic groups - so, specifically, the fact that liberal immigration policies harm the working poor. So why can't you do the deep dive on vaccinations, and identify that the vaccine hesitant Americans are causing most of the problems?
You identify as centrist. But your rhetoric is targeted at conservatives. Perhaps that's just the logical result of being a Quillette alumni.
'the absolute worst thing that media or politicians could suggest- if trying to get these two groups to get vaccinated- is the threat of government force and coercion. It's tantamount to telling Democrats that the vaccine program will be run by the fossil fuel industry, on a for profit basis'.
uh, no. in that the fossil fuel industry is objectively harmful, and vaccines aren't. so you expect rational pro-science types to have to appeal to conservative BS, but conservatives get to just hang out with MTG, spread the vaccine, and they get a pass? How bout we just mandate vaccines? It's happening in all sorts of industries. the army is mandating vaccines.
I don't get it. progressives have to consider conservative ideology, that harms others (we can debate the degree to which this happens, but it happens, obviously). but conservatives get a pass?
I think you, of all people, are perfectly positioned to call out BS on both sides. But you continue to focus on progressive BS. Both sides are dumb as shit. I want more people who thread the needle and make sense to both sides. You have inspired me on this front.
But you can only support conservatives over progressives, while claiming ideological neutrality, for so long, before your track record catches up to you. You may say you are not conservative, but your track record suggests that you are, at least, conservative sympathetic.
which is fine, of course. but I don't see you questioning conservative rhetoric the way you do progressive rhetoric.
I challenge you only because I respect you so much, for real. I'm back in the classroom come september, perhaps I could use some of your writing with the kids? I think that would be super cool.