“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.
Vaccination is the protection, not mask mandates. In the UK, we first made masks voluntary rather than compulsory in places like shops and offices, people were at first reluctant to take them off- but in the past week, I have witnessed more and more people entering shops without masks. Give it a week or so, and I will likely write another short newsletter as an update- all depending upon whether we see another spike, or if a new uptick in case numbers fails to materialise.
Democrats need to realise that a COVID case when vaccinated is not a problem.
"Cases" was always a scam because we've never counted cases for any prior disease as just showing exposure, but rather having the disease. You are right that masks have done little (the CDC reported something like 1-3% better outcome, all stats -based data analysis - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm), but the vaccine does seem to help those who are vaccinated from serious illness and death even if not doing much to slow the spread.
But deaths are rare even for the unvaccinated. The current numbers in Seattle show that that people who are tested, 4.3% are positive, a case. But of that 4.3% cases, 1.4% die, suggesting that out of those who are tested, death is 0.06% "likely."
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.
One has to take issue here with your contention that social distancing is of marginal value. This ignores basic rules of physics, i.e. the further away you are from a threat you are the less of a threat it is. Social distancing is the number one means of avoiding transmission because air is a medium and any travel through a medium will eventually stop without the input of energy to enable it to continue. So staying away from crowds and close contact will avoid COVID far more effectively than D3.
Masks can help PROVIDED they are worn properly and everyone wears them - in Japan where I live this has kept the numbers of infected people down precisely because the populace has followed the government advice and worn them. Social conformity has also helped here. If most people wear masks everyone does. However, masks are only an aid not an absolute. The numbers are now increasing in Japan because mask discipline is breaking down - even in a highly regimented society like Japan one can't force people to do what they don't want to do for too long and masks in the Japanese summer are extremely uncomfortable. The Delta COVID variant is also infectious enough to defeat mask protection.
Hi Christopher, If "social distancing" meant keeping 20 metre distances from other people not in your household outdoors and never entering a building for a few hours after such people had been in that building, then I agree that it would be a decisive means of suppressing transmission.
However, in practice it means lower densities of people in cafes, shops, public buildings and perhaps public transport. In these enclosed areas the difference in transmission between people with 0.5 metre spacing and 1.5 metres or whatever is insignificant due to the virus particles (in low humidity air, after respiratory droplets dry) remaining aloft and being circulated throughout the building for minutes or hours. Smaller, more closely packed, buildings and vehicles are obviously a greater risk than, for instance, an warehouse-like hardware store.
Masks reduce exhaled droplets and probably reduce inhaled droplets. However, they make no difference to free-floating viruses, which are like particles of smoke.
In the current disastrous situation where most people have only a fraction of the 50ng/ml 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels theirimmune systems need to work properly and where there is no program of early treatment for everyone newly infected, social distancing and masks play some role in reducing transmission. They do nothing for symptom severity or total number of viruses shed when infected. So I regard them as being of marginal importance.
Vaccines and lockdowns are the 3rd and 4th most important ways of suppressing transmission and severity. Vitamin D supplementation and early treatment are the 1st and 2nd most important ways of suppressing severity, total viral shedding (and so transmission). It is an appalling failure of medicine that these are still not widely known.
Arguing about government, corporate and individual approaches to vaccines, lockdowns, masks and vaccines totally misses the point that the current disaster could very strongly controlled with either widespread, robust, vitamin D repletion or early treatment. Both would be stronger still. When these are done, it will only make sense to vaccinate a small subset of people - primarily those suffering from obesity, diabetes, lung troubles and who are in their 70s or 80s or beyond.
Certainly 20 metres is a very nice distance but one needn't be that far away. Two metres is enough and easy to achieve. The goal is not to eliminate droplets entirely but to reduce the amount one is exposed to. Masks help in that they block exhaled droplets (not entirely but to a measurable level) but distance is the main factor here and the most important one. It's also worth recalling that most droplets don't even travel one metre but rapidly fall to the ground. There are some very instructive simulations of droplet spread (in Japanese unfortunately) available which demonstrate why distance is so important.
Good info. Preventive medicine and maintenance of overall health are the very best course of action any of us can take. However, there is little money to be made in it and it will not be embraced. More drugs for all!!
Yes, few care about intelligence or academia, they just push paying to get a degree. We want health and smarts without the hard work of training our body to respond best.
I'm taking 75 micrograms a day- is that sufficient or too much. My brother told me about a girl who he works with who has problems with vitamin D toxicity- apparently it's rare, only 8 cases per 30,0000. I thought I might ask for a test the next time I do a 'well man' clinic. I also always ask for a gamma GT test- it helps allay any fears I might have about my single malt consumption!
0.075mg is 3000IU a day. This is higher than the ridiculously low vitamin D supplementation quantity recommended by the UK government for adults - 0.020mg 800IU, or is it 0.015mg 600IU?.
Despite thousands of articles on vitamin D I could find no peer-reviewed article on D3 supplemental intake as a ratio of bodyweight, with higher ratios for those suffering from obesity. This is the only reasonable way to specify desirable D3 supplemental quantities. So I derived such ratios from Ekwaru et al. 2014, aiming for about 50ng/ml 125nmol/L circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which is what the immune system requires, and which is higher than the 20ng/ml or 30ng/ml which is sufficient for the kidneys to regulate calcium bone metabolism. There is a lot of individual variation in the 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels which result from a given quantity of D3 ingested per day - even if this is set as a ratio of bodyweight. I don't think it is practical or desirable for everyone in the world, of all ages and bodyweights, to rely on medical consultations and blood tests to choose their D3 intakes. Fortunately, there is a wide range of values which are perfectly healthy, ideally above 50ng/ml, but if you are 40ng/ml or 35ng/ml you are not doing too badly. There are self-limiting mechanisms which mean that you would have to take massive amounts of D3 for months to get above 150ng/ml (375nmol/L) which is the level above which some people might have toxic effects.
For 70kg non-obese the base amount is 0.125mg 5000IU, with up to twice this being fine. This is a gram every 22 years and D3 costs USD$2.50 a gram ex-factory in 1kg lots.
I weigh 69kg and take 1.25mg 50,000IU D3 a week = 7143 a day. I link to the 50,000IU capsules I use at the start of https://vitamindstopscovid.info . I guess my 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are most likely between 50ng/ml and 100ng/ml. This is fine and I feel no need to get the level tested. I have researched vitamin D to a far greater degree than most MDs have time for - but they can bring themselves up to speed with the most pertinent research articles I cite and summarise at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ .
Neither you or anyone else should take what amounts to medical or nutritional advise from an electronic technician - so please get medical advise from your doctor or other health professional. It would be best if they gave this advice after understanding these research articles, since they are vitally important and most MDs are not familiar with them and the other research they represent. For instance, most MDs have never heard of vitamin D based autocrine and paracrine signaling - or that it is the primary mechanism by which individual immune cells respond to their changing circumstances. They tend to think of the three vitamin D compounds as a hormonal system, but that is just a single function - for calcium-bone metabolism. The autocrine/paracrine (inside a cell and to nearby cells) signaling used in all immune cell types and in a large number of other cell types is unrelated to hormonal signaling (long distance signaling by a level of a compound in the bloodstream).
MDs in the UK especially frequently have wildly uninformed and overly cautious ideas about vitamin D toxicity. So if you tell your MD you are taking 5000IU a day, it would be best if they had some alprazolam on hand to calm themselves.
Please read the above page and follow the links yourself. Most of the articles are easy to understand. The exception is McGregor et al. (Th1 regulatory lymphocytes being stuck forever in their hyper-inflammatory startup program due to lack of 25-hydroxyvitamin D) is complex, so I provide a summary.
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.
It's a great article, data-driven and meticulously researched. However, deaths would have been a lot higher had it not been for immunological dark matter of the behavioural variety. This is the real lesson of COVID- government imposed mandates are less effective at managing a pandemic than a public well-armed with information, empowered to exercise caution in their contacts and daily lives as they see fit, and assess their personal danger according to their own risk factors and the opinions of their own doctor.
It is not that lockdowns were completely ineffective, they probably had a marginal effect on the 5% of the population who are persistent idiots. But they overlapped with a far more powerful force- ordinary people keeping up with the case numbers in their communities and their hospitals and exercising due caution accordingly.
The problem is we need that fear, the hysteria and overreaction, because in many ways COVID was a dress rehearsal for something far, far worse. And it will, come, as it always has in the past, often wiping out 70% to 90% of an unprepared population. That being said lessons can be learned. Public health officials need to learn to stop trying to scare people into compliance. It works far less well than simply arming them with the facts.
At the height of the pandemic I heard one real disease expert bemoan the fact that public health was spending so much time and effort creating graphs to scare people out of COVID non-compliant behaviour (which really was a fiction as a major source of virus spread) that the basic facts weren't getting through. People were feeling sick, taking a test and then continuing to go about their daily business probably infecting others- not because of economic necessity or hardship, but because somewhere in the white noise of media, the really essential messaging had been lost.
People are not as stupid as the highly credentialed expect them to be. The appetite for quite complex long-form discussions on YouTube prove that. All those years dumbing down television and providing a steady diet of reality TV and what people really yearned for stories with a little depth and clear knowledge about the world we live in explained by real experts, talking concisely. Their low opinion is not justified, if anything the blue collar class has behaved with a greater sense of stoicism and consideration for others than all the Ivy league professors, fund managers and upper echelons- feeling cities and buying out the local towns supplies in the funk-holes they fled to. The great and the good, showing their cowardice, as well as disdain for the rules they impose upon others, without a moments thought.
Because the risks of adverse consequences from COVID for children are very small, barring comorbidities. The risks of adverse consequences from vaccination are also very small, but not non-existent, so it is debatable which risk is higher. Where public health authorities have made the decision to vaccinate children (other than in cases in which comorbidities are present), the risks children with COVID present to others as spreaders has usually been a key consideration.
Only the health of children should be considered in such circumstances. Many are holding onto wishful thinking that COVID can ever become anything other than endemic and frequent in terms of case numbers. The experiences of the UK and Israel prove this with Delta. Vaccinations prevent death and hospitalisation, the total number of cases with each wave won't substantially be affected by 100% vaccination, although the curve may well be less truncated.
Encounter one vaccinated spreader with COVID or three unvaccinated spreaders with COVID through one or two degrees of separation and your chances of contracting the virus are roughly the same. This is where the assumptions built into the models have meant they have repeatedly failed.
The most important comorbidities which predispose children to bad outcomes are the same as with adults - obesity, which is easily visible, and low vitamin D, which is not. Obesity lowers circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels for any given D3 intake per kg bodyweight. Vitamin D3 supplementation, with a bolus (high initial) intake to start with, is what almost all of the population needs. In the clinical emergency of being COVID-19 positive, a small oral dose of calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D) is the best approach, since this raises the levels in 4 hours. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sunilwimalawansa_multisystem-inflammatory-syndrome-mis-activity-6815294839769436160-99qJ/
A UK study found that less than 1% of Covid-related hospitalisations were in young people under 19. Statistics from the American Academy of Pediatrics indicate less than 1% of children who are infected with Covid are hospitalised as a result – a lower risk than for all other age groups – while one in 10,000 children who are infected with Covid die from it.
But Dr Andrew Miller, former president of the Australian Medical Association in Western Australia, said overseas data showed children were vulnerable to the lasting symptoms of long Covid, in many cases interfering with learning or daily activities.
Stagi et al. 2015 https://aminotheory.com/cv19/#2015-Stagi showed that KD children had terribly low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels compared to the 50ng/ml their immune system needs to function properly. The patients were 21 girls and 58 boys, average age 5.8 years. Their average 25OHD levels were 9.2ng/ml, while age-matched controls averaged 23.3ng/ml. In the patients who developed coronary artery abnormalities, the average 25OHD level was 4.9ng/ml.
Most pediatricians have never heard of this research and treat the children with pernicious drugs such as prednisolone / dexamethasone. These forcibly reduce inflammation but also reduce innate and adaptive immune responses. They raise blood glucose levels in diabetic people and so lead to high risks of potentially deadly fungal infections. They can also cause psychosis.
A single oral dose of 0.014mg calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D_ / kg bodyweight would have these children recovering rapidly, just as with the adults in the Castillo et al. trial in Cordoba did with about half this: https://aminotheory.com/cv19/#2020-Castillo
Most MDs, immunologists etc. are flying blind because they are not aware of the most important research on vitamin D and the immune system, which is cited and summarised at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/
Yes, I agree. I'm just interested because they are all for mask mandates, and they say that the poor children are exposed because they do not have government permission to be vaccinated even if they really want to be. Since we no longer are busy with adults, why not allow children to vaccinated (you don't have to recommend it, and certainly not force it, but today you are not allowed to)?
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.
Well, we have called a moratorium on the premature transitioning of trans kids, mainly based upon the case of Keira Bell, who successfully brought a legal action against the NHS for not giving her sufficient access to mental health clinicians before going ahead with her transition. Also, the race issue is less potent in the UK, because he have managed to formulate a meritocracy which is less blighted by the commodification of education, and as a consequence most of our 18 to 30 minorities experience education and employment outcomes very similar to our white demographic.
We still have problems with disparate unemployment rates by ethnicity, but this is largely due to the fact that our education system, like yours, is crap at dealing with kids who don't do well academically- more vocational and technical options are needed at 14. In these circumstances, blue collar (or working class) communities with high rates of fathers are able to operate their own form of community-based social safety net, giving teenage boys access to the first rung of gainful employment.
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.
Because conservatives are more likely to listen to a heterodox like me on vaccines, than they are some liberal expert. Plus, as I stated in the essay, the question of whether children should be vaccinated is highly debatable given that any benefits are far less likely to accur to them than to adults.
The lockdown evidence is clear. Increased obesity, drug-taking, less exercise, domestic abuse, untreated cancer, suicide through economic displacement, mental health issues- especially for children (who are likely to suffer from irrevocable developmental issues). Australia actually experienced more excess deaths through lockdowns than they saved from COVID.
The vaccine hesitant are no longer causing most of the vaccine spread in the UK, the vaccinated are- it's what happens when a large majority of the population is vaccinated. Vaccines don't work at preventing the spread of Delta, they only work to prevent deaths and hospitalisation- and that is a matter of personal choice and to whether people want to avail themselves of vaccine protection. What you have to remember is that most conservatives have been data-focused on COID from the start- knowing full well that the vast majority of COVID deaths and serious hospitalisations have been amongst the elderly.
To them I would say low risk is not no risk, and regardless of whether VAERS has collected roughly 7,000 deaths from vaccination in America, vaccination will still be better for everyone over 40, for the simple reason that risks from vaccination are statistically tiny, but risks from COVID are less small.
On the fossil fuel comment, did you know that the most vaccine hesitant group by educational attainment is PhDs? Plus, its a false symmetry. I was talking about the way that conservatives think about Government- which is the single greatest cause of human-originated harm in human history as opposed to the way liberals think about big business.
I didn't give conservatives a pass- I told them to get vaccinated, provided they are over 25. And as to being too sympathetic towards to conservatives- I had a long, drawn-out, knock-down argument with conservatives only a few weeks ago over house prices, the housing industry oligopoly and the limits of markets when they have been 'captured' only a few weeks ago.
And I am receptive to some progressive ideas. Stronger worker protections seem to work pretty well in the Nordic model. I am shifting somewhat on minimum wages- provided they are implemented at times in the economic cycle when labour markets are tight. I've been giving tips to progressives on worker owner cooperatives, and was thinking about writing an article about Mondragon, as a means to elucidate a concept I call community capitalism.
Sure, you're welcome to use my writing with the kids. The reason why I seem to be going soft on vaccines with conservatives is that voluntary approaches to reducing vaccine hesitancy seem to work better than the mandate or coercive approach. Otherwise, we will have a 'dig your heels in' scenario.
We need to stop pretending that vaccines will in any way reduce case numbers though- because evidence from the UK and Israel doesn't bear that out. The main benefit is fewer deaths and hospitalisations- vaccination won't stop people catching or spreading the virus with Delta. Just look at Obama's Birthday- everyone, including the staff was vaccinated- yet now they are calling it a super spreader event, with at least 60 cases confirmed.
Hey man, that's awesome, there is definitely a need for your POV in my classes. My only concern is the reading level - mind if I edit / simplify your writing, for the sake of clarity only? I'll identify clearly that I have done this if you are cool with it? And next time I teach university-bound seniors, we will see if there up for the challenge with no teacher supports.
Can you post links that demonstrate the support for the lockdowns causing death argument? I do understand, powerfully, the negative impacts the lockdown has, in particular with the high school kids and grads I speak to regularly, and the rural / working poor community I grew up in. I'm just anxious to see numbers, especially if they demonstrate causality.
And a link for this statement, if easy? 'Vaccines don't work at preventing the spread of Delta'.
I'm gonna share your writing directly with a few people I know who will love your perspective, and making a general post on FB too if that's cool?
For real, you exist in that sweet heterodox spot, and more people need to see that perspectives like yours can be rationally critical of all BS, regardless of partisanship.
Sure, not a problem mate. The lockdowns causing deaths argument can be found by simply looking up data on increased obesity (lack of exercise and eating as a coping strategy) with all the suffering that entails- heart disease, diabetes, etc. Also see suicide increases, drug addiction and drug overdoses during the lockdowns.
The best example comes from Quillette's own COVID-Zero: Was It Worth It? It shows how their lockdowns through the pursuit of COVIF- Zero cost more lives than it saved.
For the vaccine and Delta case there is an article in Nature entitled The Coronavirus is here to stay- here's what that means. Even then 89% of scientists believed that the virus was going to become endemic, although many were more optimistic about being to contain it in countries with the resources and institutional resources. Unfortunately, this was before we knew how effective vaccines were at containing Delta spread. The vaccines were very good at preventing previous variants, but they only prevent Delta spread at a rate of 64%.
This may sound pretty good to a layman, but if you are familiar with distributed networks and network theory, then you will know that the potential to explore multiple paths across a matrix, regardless of if two-thirds of the potential bridges have been eliminated, means the virus will always get to its intended destinations. To effect decent herd immunity with pathogens which are so virulent, the figure really needs to be somewhere in the low 90s.
However, what I would suggest is that if any of your children have immunocompromised relatives, they seek advice from the local health authority in getting vaccinated to protect their loved ones. This approach really will save lives, and it was the heart and soul of the Great Barrington Declaration. I would obviously check with your head about this first. Also, its worth exploring how quickly the elderly and immunocompromised can get their third, and it might even be worth starting a campaign, because recent research has shown that the immunocompromised possess the highest risks even after double vaccination. Johns Hopkins did the research on the immunocompromised.
Of course, by all means share my work. I need as many subscribers as I can get. Also be sure to point them to some of my work on housing- to really show that I am a genuine heterodox- even if I lean to the Right on some issues. In essence, I am a civic libertarian- which means I am not ready to throw out government like the pure libertarians, but believe it should be constrained from removing people's liberties. If and when it really does help, I support it. Which is why I am for things like universal healthcare and stronger worker protections.
Well, on this topic, I was engaging with Geary specifically. I don't always have time to read the comments. I used the word 'demented' because I misremembered the word Geary used for Libs, 'derangement'. So I should have said deranged.
So you think Geary speaking of 'liberal derangement' is fine, but my saying 'Conservatives are the demented demographic when it comes to vaccines is a problem?
Note that Geary's phrasing implies a state of derangement, whereas mine is limited to a specific topic only?
That's actually a fair point, Jeremy. Was I talking about Trump Derangement Syndrome, or was this in another context? I think the divide on this is mostly caused by social media engagement- obviously I am no fan of Trump, but I always thought that the objections to him were overhyped. Specifically, the model of social media is negative engagement- anger and outrage drives engagement- so if one side is spending more time on Twitter, etc then this would show in more unreasonable perspectives of the other side.
This also holds true of legacy media these days, as well. Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow are opposite sides of the same coin- both have had lawyers argue on their behalf that no reasonable person could mistake their shows for news or objective facts.
From the Kaiser Family Foundation most of the vaccine hesitant are young (18 to 29- 29, 30 to 49- 41%), Republican 49% (versus 29% Dem), earn less than $40K (42%), and are suburbanites (urban 30%- usually non-white, suburban 56%, rural 15%). What you have to remember is that conservatives have been looking at deaths by age from the outset. In America, to date around 30,000 of the deaths have been in the under 50 category, and two-third of them have been in the 40 to 50 range.
In the context of COVID, the only reason why I might mention liberal derangement is in relation to people still being scared of COVID if they are double vaccinated. With double vaccination, the risks of death from COVID are substantially lower than for seasonal flu.
And most of the white conservatives who have decided against getting vaccinated are young and healthy people, who have weighed the risks of getting vaccinated vs. risks of COVID. They aren't always right- because especially if you are slightly overweight and out of shape, your risk profile rises- but generally people aren't very good at weighing very low risks.
That's funny. Man, the number of times conservatives tell me to get off CNN. I've seen CNN for a few minutes in airports I guess?
Nobody should get their news from only one ideological perspective, and nobody should get their news from the most mainstream mainstream media sources like MSNBC, FOX, or CNN.
That's why I seek out writing like Geary's and spend time looking for the best arguments against my beliefs. You should try it.
Well, it was an incredibly important transition technology, crucial to the modern cornucopia we enjoy today. Have you read The Honest Broker substack? It's by Peter Pielke. He explains that the most recent IPCC report should be considered great news- because the RCP 8.5 and SSP-5 8.5 models have both been deemed substantially less likely in this most recent report.
We would have to scrap our existing solar and wind, completely stop using gas and substitute coal, in order for them to be remotely plausible. The transition has already started and its going well. Now, if only governments could start getting their act together, and decide upon the politically unpopular reality of safe and cheap nuclear energy...
But, of course, the media will only report upon the worst case scenario and report it as though it was a future reality, instead of a prospect which is looking exceedingly remote.
No, that's a bit of a strawman. The fossil fuel industry has caused 'objective harms'? Is that better phrasing? Comparing society with and without fossil fuels is a different topic from how many oil spills are too many? Etc.
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.
Vaccination is the protection, not mask mandates. In the UK, we first made masks voluntary rather than compulsory in places like shops and offices, people were at first reluctant to take them off- but in the past week, I have witnessed more and more people entering shops without masks. Give it a week or so, and I will likely write another short newsletter as an update- all depending upon whether we see another spike, or if a new uptick in case numbers fails to materialise.
Democrats need to realise that a COVID case when vaccinated is not a problem.
"Cases" was always a scam because we've never counted cases for any prior disease as just showing exposure, but rather having the disease. You are right that masks have done little (the CDC reported something like 1-3% better outcome, all stats -based data analysis - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm), but the vaccine does seem to help those who are vaccinated from serious illness and death even if not doing much to slow the spread.
But deaths are rare even for the unvaccinated. The current numbers in Seattle show that that people who are tested, 4.3% are positive, a case. But of that 4.3% cases, 1.4% die, suggesting that out of those who are tested, death is 0.06% "likely."
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.
One has to take issue here with your contention that social distancing is of marginal value. This ignores basic rules of physics, i.e. the further away you are from a threat you are the less of a threat it is. Social distancing is the number one means of avoiding transmission because air is a medium and any travel through a medium will eventually stop without the input of energy to enable it to continue. So staying away from crowds and close contact will avoid COVID far more effectively than D3.
Masks can help PROVIDED they are worn properly and everyone wears them - in Japan where I live this has kept the numbers of infected people down precisely because the populace has followed the government advice and worn them. Social conformity has also helped here. If most people wear masks everyone does. However, masks are only an aid not an absolute. The numbers are now increasing in Japan because mask discipline is breaking down - even in a highly regimented society like Japan one can't force people to do what they don't want to do for too long and masks in the Japanese summer are extremely uncomfortable. The Delta COVID variant is also infectious enough to defeat mask protection.
Hi Christopher, If "social distancing" meant keeping 20 metre distances from other people not in your household outdoors and never entering a building for a few hours after such people had been in that building, then I agree that it would be a decisive means of suppressing transmission.
However, in practice it means lower densities of people in cafes, shops, public buildings and perhaps public transport. In these enclosed areas the difference in transmission between people with 0.5 metre spacing and 1.5 metres or whatever is insignificant due to the virus particles (in low humidity air, after respiratory droplets dry) remaining aloft and being circulated throughout the building for minutes or hours. Smaller, more closely packed, buildings and vehicles are obviously a greater risk than, for instance, an warehouse-like hardware store.
Masks reduce exhaled droplets and probably reduce inhaled droplets. However, they make no difference to free-floating viruses, which are like particles of smoke.
In the current disastrous situation where most people have only a fraction of the 50ng/ml 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels theirimmune systems need to work properly and where there is no program of early treatment for everyone newly infected, social distancing and masks play some role in reducing transmission. They do nothing for symptom severity or total number of viruses shed when infected. So I regard them as being of marginal importance.
Vaccines and lockdowns are the 3rd and 4th most important ways of suppressing transmission and severity. Vitamin D supplementation and early treatment are the 1st and 2nd most important ways of suppressing severity, total viral shedding (and so transmission). It is an appalling failure of medicine that these are still not widely known.
In the next week or so I plan to make a new page on early treatments for COVID-19 at https://vitamindstopscovid.info .
Arguing about government, corporate and individual approaches to vaccines, lockdowns, masks and vaccines totally misses the point that the current disaster could very strongly controlled with either widespread, robust, vitamin D repletion or early treatment. Both would be stronger still. When these are done, it will only make sense to vaccinate a small subset of people - primarily those suffering from obesity, diabetes, lung troubles and who are in their 70s or 80s or beyond.
Certainly 20 metres is a very nice distance but one needn't be that far away. Two metres is enough and easy to achieve. The goal is not to eliminate droplets entirely but to reduce the amount one is exposed to. Masks help in that they block exhaled droplets (not entirely but to a measurable level) but distance is the main factor here and the most important one. It's also worth recalling that most droplets don't even travel one metre but rapidly fall to the ground. There are some very instructive simulations of droplet spread (in Japanese unfortunately) available which demonstrate why distance is so important.
Good info. Preventive medicine and maintenance of overall health are the very best course of action any of us can take. However, there is little money to be made in it and it will not be embraced. More drugs for all!!
Yes, few care about intelligence or academia, they just push paying to get a degree. We want health and smarts without the hard work of training our body to respond best.
I'm taking 75 micrograms a day- is that sufficient or too much. My brother told me about a girl who he works with who has problems with vitamin D toxicity- apparently it's rare, only 8 cases per 30,0000. I thought I might ask for a test the next time I do a 'well man' clinic. I also always ask for a gamma GT test- it helps allay any fears I might have about my single malt consumption!
0.075mg is 3000IU a day. This is higher than the ridiculously low vitamin D supplementation quantity recommended by the UK government for adults - 0.020mg 800IU, or is it 0.015mg 600IU?.
Despite thousands of articles on vitamin D I could find no peer-reviewed article on D3 supplemental intake as a ratio of bodyweight, with higher ratios for those suffering from obesity. This is the only reasonable way to specify desirable D3 supplemental quantities. So I derived such ratios from Ekwaru et al. 2014, aiming for about 50ng/ml 125nmol/L circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D, which is what the immune system requires, and which is higher than the 20ng/ml or 30ng/ml which is sufficient for the kidneys to regulate calcium bone metabolism. There is a lot of individual variation in the 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels which result from a given quantity of D3 ingested per day - even if this is set as a ratio of bodyweight. I don't think it is practical or desirable for everyone in the world, of all ages and bodyweights, to rely on medical consultations and blood tests to choose their D3 intakes. Fortunately, there is a wide range of values which are perfectly healthy, ideally above 50ng/ml, but if you are 40ng/ml or 35ng/ml you are not doing too badly. There are self-limiting mechanisms which mean that you would have to take massive amounts of D3 for months to get above 150ng/ml (375nmol/L) which is the level above which some people might have toxic effects.
Most MDs think these lower levels such as 20ng/ml signify repletion, but there are numerous reasons, especially the work of Quraishi et al. 2014: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ which show 50ng/ml is the minimum level. Those ratios are at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/01-supp/ .
For 70kg non-obese the base amount is 0.125mg 5000IU, with up to twice this being fine. This is a gram every 22 years and D3 costs USD$2.50 a gram ex-factory in 1kg lots.
I weigh 69kg and take 1.25mg 50,000IU D3 a week = 7143 a day. I link to the 50,000IU capsules I use at the start of https://vitamindstopscovid.info . I guess my 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are most likely between 50ng/ml and 100ng/ml. This is fine and I feel no need to get the level tested. I have researched vitamin D to a far greater degree than most MDs have time for - but they can bring themselves up to speed with the most pertinent research articles I cite and summarise at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/ .
Neither you or anyone else should take what amounts to medical or nutritional advise from an electronic technician - so please get medical advise from your doctor or other health professional. It would be best if they gave this advice after understanding these research articles, since they are vitally important and most MDs are not familiar with them and the other research they represent. For instance, most MDs have never heard of vitamin D based autocrine and paracrine signaling - or that it is the primary mechanism by which individual immune cells respond to their changing circumstances. They tend to think of the three vitamin D compounds as a hormonal system, but that is just a single function - for calcium-bone metabolism. The autocrine/paracrine (inside a cell and to nearby cells) signaling used in all immune cell types and in a large number of other cell types is unrelated to hormonal signaling (long distance signaling by a level of a compound in the bloodstream).
MDs in the UK especially frequently have wildly uninformed and overly cautious ideas about vitamin D toxicity. So if you tell your MD you are taking 5000IU a day, it would be best if they had some alprazolam on hand to calm themselves.
Please read the above page and follow the links yourself. Most of the articles are easy to understand. The exception is McGregor et al. (Th1 regulatory lymphocytes being stuck forever in their hyper-inflammatory startup program due to lack of 25-hydroxyvitamin D) is complex, so I provide a summary.
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.
Nice to hear about the court ruling.
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.
It's a great article, data-driven and meticulously researched. However, deaths would have been a lot higher had it not been for immunological dark matter of the behavioural variety. This is the real lesson of COVID- government imposed mandates are less effective at managing a pandemic than a public well-armed with information, empowered to exercise caution in their contacts and daily lives as they see fit, and assess their personal danger according to their own risk factors and the opinions of their own doctor.
It is not that lockdowns were completely ineffective, they probably had a marginal effect on the 5% of the population who are persistent idiots. But they overlapped with a far more powerful force- ordinary people keeping up with the case numbers in their communities and their hospitals and exercising due caution accordingly.
The problem is we need that fear, the hysteria and overreaction, because in many ways COVID was a dress rehearsal for something far, far worse. And it will, come, as it always has in the past, often wiping out 70% to 90% of an unprepared population. That being said lessons can be learned. Public health officials need to learn to stop trying to scare people into compliance. It works far less well than simply arming them with the facts.
At the height of the pandemic I heard one real disease expert bemoan the fact that public health was spending so much time and effort creating graphs to scare people out of COVID non-compliant behaviour (which really was a fiction as a major source of virus spread) that the basic facts weren't getting through. People were feeling sick, taking a test and then continuing to go about their daily business probably infecting others- not because of economic necessity or hardship, but because somewhere in the white noise of media, the really essential messaging had been lost.
People are not as stupid as the highly credentialed expect them to be. The appetite for quite complex long-form discussions on YouTube prove that. All those years dumbing down television and providing a steady diet of reality TV and what people really yearned for stories with a little depth and clear knowledge about the world we live in explained by real experts, talking concisely. Their low opinion is not justified, if anything the blue collar class has behaved with a greater sense of stoicism and consideration for others than all the Ivy league professors, fund managers and upper echelons- feeling cities and buying out the local towns supplies in the funk-holes they fled to. The great and the good, showing their cowardice, as well as disdain for the rules they impose upon others, without a moments thought.
Amen. 100% does not due this comment justice.
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?
Because the risks of adverse consequences from COVID for children are very small, barring comorbidities. The risks of adverse consequences from vaccination are also very small, but not non-existent, so it is debatable which risk is higher. Where public health authorities have made the decision to vaccinate children (other than in cases in which comorbidities are present), the risks children with COVID present to others as spreaders has usually been a key consideration.
Only the health of children should be considered in such circumstances. Many are holding onto wishful thinking that COVID can ever become anything other than endemic and frequent in terms of case numbers. The experiences of the UK and Israel prove this with Delta. Vaccinations prevent death and hospitalisation, the total number of cases with each wave won't substantially be affected by 100% vaccination, although the curve may well be less truncated.
Encounter one vaccinated spreader with COVID or three unvaccinated spreaders with COVID through one or two degrees of separation and your chances of contracting the virus are roughly the same. This is where the assumptions built into the models have meant they have repeatedly failed.
The most important comorbidities which predispose children to bad outcomes are the same as with adults - obesity, which is easily visible, and low vitamin D, which is not. Obesity lowers circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels for any given D3 intake per kg bodyweight. Vitamin D3 supplementation, with a bolus (high initial) intake to start with, is what almost all of the population needs. In the clinical emergency of being COVID-19 positive, a small oral dose of calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D) is the best approach, since this raises the levels in 4 hours. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sunilwimalawansa_multisystem-inflammatory-syndrome-mis-activity-6815294839769436160-99qJ/
Yesterday in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/19/experts-say-delta-variant-spread-among-australian-children-is-concerning-in-absence-of-covid-vaccine of Victoria's 246 active cases, 56 were children aged nine and younger and 55 were aged between 10 and 19. None of these were currently in hospital.
A UK study found that less than 1% of Covid-related hospitalisations were in young people under 19. Statistics from the American Academy of Pediatrics indicate less than 1% of children who are infected with Covid are hospitalised as a result – a lower risk than for all other age groups – while one in 10,000 children who are infected with Covid die from it.
But Dr Andrew Miller, former president of the Australian Medical Association in Western Australia, said overseas data showed children were vulnerable to the lasting symptoms of long Covid, in many cases interfering with learning or daily activities.
If anyone doubts the seriousness of harm done by COVID-19 to a non-trivial number of children, please see the Google Scholar search results for 2020 onwards regarding Kawasaki disease https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_ylo=2020&q=%22Kawasaki+disease%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 and Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2020&q=%22Multisystem+Inflammatory+Syndrome%22&btnG= . Both these are disorders of grossly dysregulated, self-destructive, hyper-inflammatory immune responses, triggered by potentially mild or even asymptomatic infections. COVID-19 is now causing a lot of this.
Stagi et al. 2015 https://aminotheory.com/cv19/#2015-Stagi showed that KD children had terribly low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels compared to the 50ng/ml their immune system needs to function properly. The patients were 21 girls and 58 boys, average age 5.8 years. Their average 25OHD levels were 9.2ng/ml, while age-matched controls averaged 23.3ng/ml. In the patients who developed coronary artery abnormalities, the average 25OHD level was 4.9ng/ml.
Most pediatricians have never heard of this research and treat the children with pernicious drugs such as prednisolone / dexamethasone. These forcibly reduce inflammation but also reduce innate and adaptive immune responses. They raise blood glucose levels in diabetic people and so lead to high risks of potentially deadly fungal infections. They can also cause psychosis.
A single oral dose of 0.014mg calcifediol (25-hydroxyvitamin D_ / kg bodyweight would have these children recovering rapidly, just as with the adults in the Castillo et al. trial in Cordoba did with about half this: https://aminotheory.com/cv19/#2020-Castillo
Most MDs, immunologists etc. are flying blind because they are not aware of the most important research on vitamin D and the immune system, which is cited and summarised at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/05-mds/
Yes, I agree. I'm just interested because they are all for mask mandates, and they say that the poor children are exposed because they do not have government permission to be vaccinated even if they really want to be. Since we no longer are busy with adults, why not allow children to vaccinated (you don't have to recommend it, and certainly not force it, but today you are not allowed to)?
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.
Well, we have called a moratorium on the premature transitioning of trans kids, mainly based upon the case of Keira Bell, who successfully brought a legal action against the NHS for not giving her sufficient access to mental health clinicians before going ahead with her transition. Also, the race issue is less potent in the UK, because he have managed to formulate a meritocracy which is less blighted by the commodification of education, and as a consequence most of our 18 to 30 minorities experience education and employment outcomes very similar to our white demographic.
We still have problems with disparate unemployment rates by ethnicity, but this is largely due to the fact that our education system, like yours, is crap at dealing with kids who don't do well academically- more vocational and technical options are needed at 14. In these circumstances, blue collar (or working class) communities with high rates of fathers are able to operate their own form of community-based social safety net, giving teenage boys access to the first rung of gainful employment.
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.
Because conservatives are more likely to listen to a heterodox like me on vaccines, than they are some liberal expert. Plus, as I stated in the essay, the question of whether children should be vaccinated is highly debatable given that any benefits are far less likely to accur to them than to adults.
The lockdown evidence is clear. Increased obesity, drug-taking, less exercise, domestic abuse, untreated cancer, suicide through economic displacement, mental health issues- especially for children (who are likely to suffer from irrevocable developmental issues). Australia actually experienced more excess deaths through lockdowns than they saved from COVID.
The vaccine hesitant are no longer causing most of the vaccine spread in the UK, the vaccinated are- it's what happens when a large majority of the population is vaccinated. Vaccines don't work at preventing the spread of Delta, they only work to prevent deaths and hospitalisation- and that is a matter of personal choice and to whether people want to avail themselves of vaccine protection. What you have to remember is that most conservatives have been data-focused on COID from the start- knowing full well that the vast majority of COVID deaths and serious hospitalisations have been amongst the elderly.
To them I would say low risk is not no risk, and regardless of whether VAERS has collected roughly 7,000 deaths from vaccination in America, vaccination will still be better for everyone over 40, for the simple reason that risks from vaccination are statistically tiny, but risks from COVID are less small.
On the fossil fuel comment, did you know that the most vaccine hesitant group by educational attainment is PhDs? Plus, its a false symmetry. I was talking about the way that conservatives think about Government- which is the single greatest cause of human-originated harm in human history as opposed to the way liberals think about big business.
I didn't give conservatives a pass- I told them to get vaccinated, provided they are over 25. And as to being too sympathetic towards to conservatives- I had a long, drawn-out, knock-down argument with conservatives only a few weeks ago over house prices, the housing industry oligopoly and the limits of markets when they have been 'captured' only a few weeks ago.
And I am receptive to some progressive ideas. Stronger worker protections seem to work pretty well in the Nordic model. I am shifting somewhat on minimum wages- provided they are implemented at times in the economic cycle when labour markets are tight. I've been giving tips to progressives on worker owner cooperatives, and was thinking about writing an article about Mondragon, as a means to elucidate a concept I call community capitalism.
Sure, you're welcome to use my writing with the kids. The reason why I seem to be going soft on vaccines with conservatives is that voluntary approaches to reducing vaccine hesitancy seem to work better than the mandate or coercive approach. Otherwise, we will have a 'dig your heels in' scenario.
We need to stop pretending that vaccines will in any way reduce case numbers though- because evidence from the UK and Israel doesn't bear that out. The main benefit is fewer deaths and hospitalisations- vaccination won't stop people catching or spreading the virus with Delta. Just look at Obama's Birthday- everyone, including the staff was vaccinated- yet now they are calling it a super spreader event, with at least 60 cases confirmed.
Hey man, that's awesome, there is definitely a need for your POV in my classes. My only concern is the reading level - mind if I edit / simplify your writing, for the sake of clarity only? I'll identify clearly that I have done this if you are cool with it? And next time I teach university-bound seniors, we will see if there up for the challenge with no teacher supports.
Can you post links that demonstrate the support for the lockdowns causing death argument? I do understand, powerfully, the negative impacts the lockdown has, in particular with the high school kids and grads I speak to regularly, and the rural / working poor community I grew up in. I'm just anxious to see numbers, especially if they demonstrate causality.
And a link for this statement, if easy? 'Vaccines don't work at preventing the spread of Delta'.
I'm gonna share your writing directly with a few people I know who will love your perspective, and making a general post on FB too if that's cool?
For real, you exist in that sweet heterodox spot, and more people need to see that perspectives like yours can be rationally critical of all BS, regardless of partisanship.
Sure, not a problem mate. The lockdowns causing deaths argument can be found by simply looking up data on increased obesity (lack of exercise and eating as a coping strategy) with all the suffering that entails- heart disease, diabetes, etc. Also see suicide increases, drug addiction and drug overdoses during the lockdowns.
The best example comes from Quillette's own COVID-Zero: Was It Worth It? It shows how their lockdowns through the pursuit of COVIF- Zero cost more lives than it saved.
For the vaccine and Delta case there is an article in Nature entitled The Coronavirus is here to stay- here's what that means. Even then 89% of scientists believed that the virus was going to become endemic, although many were more optimistic about being to contain it in countries with the resources and institutional resources. Unfortunately, this was before we knew how effective vaccines were at containing Delta spread. The vaccines were very good at preventing previous variants, but they only prevent Delta spread at a rate of 64%.
This may sound pretty good to a layman, but if you are familiar with distributed networks and network theory, then you will know that the potential to explore multiple paths across a matrix, regardless of if two-thirds of the potential bridges have been eliminated, means the virus will always get to its intended destinations. To effect decent herd immunity with pathogens which are so virulent, the figure really needs to be somewhere in the low 90s.
However, what I would suggest is that if any of your children have immunocompromised relatives, they seek advice from the local health authority in getting vaccinated to protect their loved ones. This approach really will save lives, and it was the heart and soul of the Great Barrington Declaration. I would obviously check with your head about this first. Also, its worth exploring how quickly the elderly and immunocompromised can get their third, and it might even be worth starting a campaign, because recent research has shown that the immunocompromised possess the highest risks even after double vaccination. Johns Hopkins did the research on the immunocompromised.
Of course, by all means share my work. I need as many subscribers as I can get. Also be sure to point them to some of my work on housing- to really show that I am a genuine heterodox- even if I lean to the Right on some issues. In essence, I am a civic libertarian- which means I am not ready to throw out government like the pure libertarians, but believe it should be constrained from removing people's liberties. If and when it really does help, I support it. Which is why I am for things like universal healthcare and stronger worker protections.
Also, Jeremy, when you're engaging with people, do you often start off by calling your opponents 'demented', as you do here? Does that *ever* work?
Well, on this topic, I was engaging with Geary specifically. I don't always have time to read the comments. I used the word 'demented' because I misremembered the word Geary used for Libs, 'derangement'. So I should have said deranged.
So you think Geary speaking of 'liberal derangement' is fine, but my saying 'Conservatives are the demented demographic when it comes to vaccines is a problem?
Note that Geary's phrasing implies a state of derangement, whereas mine is limited to a specific topic only?
That's actually a fair point, Jeremy. Was I talking about Trump Derangement Syndrome, or was this in another context? I think the divide on this is mostly caused by social media engagement- obviously I am no fan of Trump, but I always thought that the objections to him were overhyped. Specifically, the model of social media is negative engagement- anger and outrage drives engagement- so if one side is spending more time on Twitter, etc then this would show in more unreasonable perspectives of the other side.
This also holds true of legacy media these days, as well. Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow are opposite sides of the same coin- both have had lawyers argue on their behalf that no reasonable person could mistake their shows for news or objective facts.
From the Kaiser Family Foundation most of the vaccine hesitant are young (18 to 29- 29, 30 to 49- 41%), Republican 49% (versus 29% Dem), earn less than $40K (42%), and are suburbanites (urban 30%- usually non-white, suburban 56%, rural 15%). What you have to remember is that conservatives have been looking at deaths by age from the outset. In America, to date around 30,000 of the deaths have been in the under 50 category, and two-third of them have been in the 40 to 50 range.
In the context of COVID, the only reason why I might mention liberal derangement is in relation to people still being scared of COVID if they are double vaccinated. With double vaccination, the risks of death from COVID are substantially lower than for seasonal flu.
"Jane, you ignorant slut." -- Funny in a comedy debate...
Stop watching CNN and look at the actual data. The largest groups of vaccine hesitancy are blacks & hispanics.
And most of the white conservatives who have decided against getting vaccinated are young and healthy people, who have weighed the risks of getting vaccinated vs. risks of COVID. They aren't always right- because especially if you are slightly overweight and out of shape, your risk profile rises- but generally people aren't very good at weighing very low risks.
That's funny. Man, the number of times conservatives tell me to get off CNN. I've seen CNN for a few minutes in airports I guess?
Nobody should get their news from only one ideological perspective, and nobody should get their news from the most mainstream mainstream media sources like MSNBC, FOX, or CNN.
That's why I seek out writing like Geary's and spend time looking for the best arguments against my beliefs. You should try it.
The fossil fuel industry is "objectively harmful" because if we had used none the world would be better off today?
Well, it was an incredibly important transition technology, crucial to the modern cornucopia we enjoy today. Have you read The Honest Broker substack? It's by Peter Pielke. He explains that the most recent IPCC report should be considered great news- because the RCP 8.5 and SSP-5 8.5 models have both been deemed substantially less likely in this most recent report.
We would have to scrap our existing solar and wind, completely stop using gas and substitute coal, in order for them to be remotely plausible. The transition has already started and its going well. Now, if only governments could start getting their act together, and decide upon the politically unpopular reality of safe and cheap nuclear energy...
But, of course, the media will only report upon the worst case scenario and report it as though it was a future reality, instead of a prospect which is looking exceedingly remote.
No, that's a bit of a strawman. The fossil fuel industry has caused 'objective harms'? Is that better phrasing? Comparing society with and without fossil fuels is a different topic from how many oil spills are too many? Etc.
True, but human life has caused objective harms. And cars, houses, forests, oceans, winds....all of nature.