Mate, I suspect you're talking out of your hat here. Who funds UK health oriented research? The NHS you said on the previous post?
No decent epidemiologist I know would argue for causation in most cases, merely strong association.
That's a lot of words for saying "I don't actually know what I'm talking about".
Shame that, you're usually better than this.
I think you're falling into error here by trusting parchment over reason. I'm not an epidemiologist, and I don't use language the way they do. I am as qualified to draw inferences from data, and not subject to the social pressures of their field. They are compelled to toe the line on certain things as a consequence, and when we start talking about those areas is where you should quit trusting them implicitly, because what they tell you (and elect not to research) is biased by self-interest.
I'm certainly more willing than an epidemiologist to draw inferences from garbage data, because that's what I was trained to do. Getting ahead in the social sciences, outside of the realm of pure theory, generally results from finding clever ways to measure things. The theoreticians mostly have primacy of place, as is the case in the hard sciences. They usually need the level of empirical support Bohr had, rather than what Einstein had at the time, to gain that primacy.
Unfortunately you're using people's accounts to justify a poor argument rather than provide solid rounded evidence from a variety of methodological approaches.
This is what we are reduced to, when we cannot generate quantitative studies due to conflicts of interest. In general, the way the scientific process works is somebody does good qualitative work of this character, then somebody investigates the proposition more rigorously. When the quantitative work cannot be produced as a result of temporal problems as well as social, legal and financial incentives, the best move is to accept the conclusions of the qualitative work in an open-minded way with one exception. That exception is if you have cause to believe that the work happens to be drawing the wrong conclusions based on other information in your possession.
You do this all the time already, if you're accepting the consensus on a fair number of things such as off-label prescriptions. You just don't realize it. I would argue that, in this case, the causal chain is clear enough that the qualitative work is probably correct.
If you want more people to get vaccinated, then you should recognize that this is a sales job. Deriding objections does not work in sales. In this particular case, I would say FB92's objections happen to be well-founded. If you want him making the decision you prefer, you're doing exactly the opposite of what works.
What research shows works to moderate views is exposing others to new information one-on-one through
in-person social networks. I would argue that the reason for this is that people just behave differently in-person than online. More recent research suggests that exposing people to new information through a computer tends to harden positions, rather than result in changes in thinking. The hypothesized cause (which is well-supported with data) is that the way that information is presented digitally tends to give people more ammunition for their existing objections, rather than address them in the sort of way that a one-on-one in-person conversation naturally would.
In other words, social media mobs don't work. They just preach to the choir, and alienate the unconverted.
We're saying almost the same thing here. I am saying (and have said) that FB92 should make a reasoned assessment of relative risks with respect to the available vaccines, pick the one with the least risks for him personally and get vaccinated. That's what I did. The known risks associated with COVID are greater than the known risks with respect to the side effects of the vaccine, and the herd immunity problem means there's a social imperative for him to get vaccinated to protect the immunocompromised.
We also should admit the risks with respect to the vaccine, and do better research with respect to resolving them going forward. There's no question they're rushed, imperfect products. That's what we
should be doing in a public health crisis, though - push an imperfect solution out to save lives and fix the social consequences.
I waited a few months for better data before getting vaccinated, because I had the luxury to stay bunkered up, and I'm very glad I did. There's a good chance that it kept me alive, and the choice of vaccine and booster was also an irrevocable decision with potentially serious consequences with respect to COVID risks. I've dodged any serious illness so far at the price of a week flat on my back after getting boosted the first time, which is dirt cheap if you ask me. I've heard enough long COVID stories from people choosing different vaccine combinations that I'm very satisfied with the price paid. I would also suggest that long COVID is a strong enough imperative to get vaccinated that it crushes any anti-vax argument out there, and that if we want results that's where the focus should be going forward when it comes to vaccine hesitancy.
