Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Martin Alvito]

I believe all anyone is asking for is: back up your points with data, if you can't don't make them.

I believe that what I am saying is that FB92 has been backing his assertions with data the whole time. You are disagreeing with his inferences. I am also saying that demanding hard data is not a good way to think about some problems, due to problems with the (political) process which produces the research whose results we are able to consume. There's a large unobserved set of research which simply cannot be produced by reputable scientists, and another set of excellent work that treads on the wrong toes whose results are broadly disparaged as a consequence.

If you don't believe me about the latter proposition, look up the story of Kathryn Paige Harden. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters does an excellent job of explaining the problem. The TL;DR on that is that political polarization precludes first-rate empirical work from receiving broad-based acceptance when the conclusions call into question sacred cows on both the political left and right.

As far as what I am saying about in-person conversation effects on political views goes, I'll toss you the citations. The qualitative work with respect to the problem (with some empirical support) is in Bob Putman's Bowling Alone. IIRC, the seminal quantitative study on his propositions is in the 2002 American Political Science Review (pre-eminent journal in the field) and was done by Diana Mutz, now at Stanford. There's plenty of follow-up studies in sub-field journals like Political Psychology that back her conclusions up and clarify.

What this shows is that people in previous generations participated in in-person social networks, such as the bowling alley and the Elks Club, that regularly exposed them to opposing views. These days, most people self-segregate into echo-chamber silos in terms of how their in-person social networks are constructed, and don't get the same exposure. This is one of the principal explanations for the rise of political polarization, which in turn explains how Harden's high-quality work has faced as much resistance as it has.

The social media stuff is a bit murkier, since it's still emerging and there's a ton of cross-cutting empirical work out there. I can't recall which study cut through a lot of that and established what I believe to be a convincing causal process (with good data) off the top of my head. The conclusion they draw is that social media in fact exacerbates the problem by its nature. I can't recall with certainty whether I'm drawing the specific inference that the public vs. private nature of the conversation is part of the problem from their data, or if they spoke to that explicitly.

If I had more time right now, I could probably hunt that citation down and check my memory on the one point, but I don't. I'll look when I have time.

No offence mate, that makes little sense. An awful word salad.

I wasn't at all saying there is qualitative work to supplant qualitative work. I actually just don't think your assertion that there is no evidence or that UK funders are somehow too politically inhibited to fund research into the effects of the vaccine are correct.

I also think you are being rather disingenuous or disrespectful of epidemiologists there. Maybe in the states, but in the UK? I'd argue not.

Anyway, let's leave it. Keep beating your drum and I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

Let me put it to you this way: this is a hole where political pressure precludes drilling down properly. If it didn't, we never get vaccines in the first place, because of the strict liability standard the American legal system applies to pharmaceutical products with respect to damages.

That's where I'm coming from on that one, and we can agree to disagree from there as far as I'm concerned.

 

[LinekersLegs]

This would be fantastic if it pans out

 

[JimmyJeffers]

I am saying is that FB92 has been backing his assertions with data the whole time.

He wha?!
For example, he has repeatedly stated that there have been more medical emergencies at football games and tried to link this to the vaccine rollout. A common narrative that raspers have been trying to push without any empirical evidence.

 

[LinekersLegs]

More parents in the U.S. say they are against school vaccine requirements, new survey finds

As the largest measles outbreak in the U.S. since 2019 continues in Ohio, a growing number of parents are opposed to school vaccination requirements, a new survey finds.

asm.social

A small but growing measles outbreak in central Ohio has sickened at least 77 children, almost all under age 5. The vast majority are either unvaccinated or have received just one of the two recommended doses of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, according to City of Columbus Public Health.

More than a third of the children have been hospitalized.

The outbreak, the largest in the U.S. since 2019, is happening as resistance to school vaccination requirements is spreading across the country. On Friday, the Kaiser Family Foundation released data showing that 28% of adults surveyed this summer were against vaccination requirements for kids entering kindergarten, up from 16% in 2019.

The percentage of parents who said they were against vaccination requirements for school was even higher. This year, 35% of surveyed parents said it should be up to moms and dads whether to have their kids vaccinated, up from 23% in 2019."That's a pretty substantial change in three years," said Lunna Lopes, a senior survey analyst for KFF's Public Opinion and Survey Research team.

The main driver of the increase has been the debate over vaccination mandates during the pandemic, Lopes said. The survey did not suggest people stopped believing in the need for vaccines; rather, the change reflected a shift in attitudes toward vaccination requirements to attend school.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Maybe we all need to stop needling each other other covid and go back to more wholesome passtimes such as moaning, agitating and scrapping over Lampard, Maupay, Everton, the board etc?

 

[Rita_Poon]

Maybe we all need to stop needling each other other covid and go back to more wholesome passtimes such as moaning, agitating and scrapping over Lampard, Maupay, Everton, the board etc?

Only if they've all had their jabs...

 

[Nymzee]

I believe that what I am saying is that FB92 has been backing his assertions with data the whole time.

Please show me this.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

He wha?!
For example, he has repeatedly stated that there have been more medical emergencies at football games and tried to link this to the vaccine rollout. A common narrative that raspers have been trying to push without any empirical evidence.

Since December 2020 there have been two new things that have come into contact with the majority of the human population:

1. COVID 19

2. COVID Vaccines

There is an abnormal increase/excess in deaths.

There is proof that MRNA vaccines can cause heart problems

There is proof the AZ vaccine can cause severe blood clotting.

A % of the excess deaths is already accounted for with COVID.

So for the other unaccounted % of excess deaths its fair to look at the vaccines when there are many medical journals and reports oot there showing numerous dangerous conditions that can be brought on by the vaccine in rare cases particularly that can affect the heart.

We dont have the benefit of longitudinal studies on these things they are ultimately emergency approved medicine thats been in mass circulation for approx 18 months so to suggest one way or another that what any of us are claiming is true or false with certainty is folly.

 

[spectateur]

What about all these football matches with people in the crowd getting ill. Never used to happen. People need to do some research

Oh yes there were. Just that a lot less fuss was made. Never used to stop a game if somebody collapsed in the stand.

 

[roydo]

Cant believe folk are still trying to link rare outlying medical conditions to the covid jabs being harmful.

Heres a thing. In China, they have still been in severe lockdowns, (till protests) cos the CCP decided their vax was better than the nasty West's. It wasnt. By a mile.

The rest of the world is largely opened up, exhibit A, the World Cup. (See protests above).

But some poor sole with a medical condition, died, collapsed, whatever, after a jab. Public health exists for the many, not the few.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Since December 2020 there have been two new things that have come into contact with the majority of the human population:

1. COVID 19

2. COVID Vaccines

There is an abnormal increase in usual excess deaths.

There is proof that MRNA vaccines can cause heart problems

There is proof the AZ vaccine can cause severe blood clotting.

A % of the excess deaths is already accounted for with COVID.

So for the other unaccounted % of excess deaths its fair to look at the vaccines when there are many medical journals and reports oot there showing numerous dangerous conditions that can be brought on by the vaccine in rare cases particularly that can affect the heart.

We dont have the benefit of longitudinal studies on these things they are ultimately emergency approved medicine thats been in mass circulation for approx 18 months so to suggest one way or another that what any of us are claiming is true or false with certainty is folly.

Do you have the paper that analyses the % of excess deaths attributable to covid and other causes?

Legit curious, I'd like to see it.

What you are also missing is the effects on health inequalities that a) the pandemic and b) austerity has had the last few years. There's already huge disparity in mortality and morbidity between rich and poor, but covid certainly brought them into sharp relief and potentially accelerated some.

What's needed is a high quality study taking into account potential confounders.

Which is a fair point you make. But because you recognise this your earlier assertions are all the more strange.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Oh yes there were. Just that a lot less fuss was made. Never used to stop a game if somebody collapsed in the stand.

Yeah I know.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Do you have the paper that analyses the % of excess deaths attributable to covid and other causes?

Legit curious, I'd like to see it.

What you are also missing is the effects on health inequalities that a) the pandemic and b) austerity has had the last few years. There's already huge disparity in mortality and morbidity between rich and poor, but covid certainly brought them into sharp relief and potentially accelerated some.

What's needed is a high quality study taking into account potential confounders.

Which is a fair point you make. But because you recognise this your earlier assertions are all the more strange.

As you say my friend its a difficult one to analyse and reach firm conclusions one way or another at such an early stage.

My original point on the topic (which I may not have worded that well) was that there is an increasing amount of scientific evidence / recordings of patients suffering from rare but serious reactions to the vaccines in particular the heart/arteries which can cause sudden deaths / cardiac arrests often without warning symptoms which raises concerns for me with the excess deaths and increasing incidents of fans collapsing at matches etc.

I personally have nothing against the vaccines - I had a bad reaction to my 2nd jab so never got the booster neither will I get another as it clearly doesnt agree with me - however I always advocate my arl fella and ma to get their boosters as they have never had any issues (I've also had Covid and only had it mild).

I was just raising a point that there are those who are entrenched in their support of the jabs to the extent that any theory related to their adverse reactions is shot down as being "liars" & "conspiracy theorists" which for me is as dangerous and short sighted as those claiming Bill Gates is putting mind control chips in the jabs.

We have to be open minded and look at the evidence as it comes in otherwise unnecessary casualties may happen/continue to happen.

 

[verreauxi]

I believe that what I am saying is that FB92 has been backing his assertions with data the whole time. You are disagreeing with his inferences. I am also saying that demanding hard data is not a good way to think about some problems, due to problems with the (political) process which produces the research whose results we are able to consume. There's a large unobserved set of research which simply cannot be produced by reputable scientists, and another set of excellent work that treads on the wrong toes whose results are broadly disparaged as a consequence.

If you don't believe me about the latter proposition, look up the story of Kathryn Paige Harden. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/09/13/can-progressives-be-convinced-that-genetics-matters does an excellent job of explaining the problem. The TL;DR on that is that political polarization precludes first-rate empirical work from receiving broad-based acceptance when the conclusions call into question sacred cows on both the political left and right.

I understand where you are coming from but don't agree with all you are saying. Hard data that is well-interpreted is largely the only way we can determine things like efficacy of vaccines, their side-effects, and other issues. In the case of vaccines, they have been needlessly and a priori politicized by anti-vax groups; these people are not interested in debate, data, or analysis--they simply have a bias against vaccines and do all in their power to spread misinformation against them.

Apart from the anti-vax folks, there is robust responsible studies and there are shoddy/preliminary studies. This is where some need for scientific understanding and scientific expertise comes into play. More simply, if I understand what you are saying, I don't think any responsible and conscientious scientist has been politically ostracized for publishing studies that run against a given political grain (e.g., publishing a study that shows that Covid vaccines cause lots of excess deaths); instead, the scientists who publish these things are largely ostracized by the scientific community because their study has been shown to be careless/poorly executed/poorly interpreted or the scientist themself is pursuing their own political agenda (e.g., anti-vax sympathizer, seeking self-aggrandizement, or purposely publishing in pay-to-play journals that don't have peer review). These shoddy researchers, of course, then claim they are being politically silenced when they are actually being scientifically silenced. As another example, race science is massively politicized, in that people get very uncomfortable with the idea that some ethnic groups/races might differ genetically, cognitively, or personality-wise. However, the politicization occurs here because the science behind these studies is very shoddy and not robust. And thus when a journal rejects yet another manuscript by a shoddy "race realist" they are doing so because it's a shitty manuscript not because it's politically taboo. But of course the race scientist can then claim "politics are at play" and "I'm being silenced by the PC crowd" etc., etc., when in fact they are being silenced because they produce low-quality, poorly executed research. [And more often than not, these people often have been found to make curiously racist-adjacent statements on social media and elsewhere, thereby giving circumstantial evidence that they, not the scientific community at large, is pursuing a political agenda.]

In the case of Paige Harden, who studies the role that genetics plays in determining life outcomes (and she is a progressive/liberal), she did receive tons of push-back on twitter from liberals/progressives who don't like her nodding toward genetic determinism (even though she emphasizes luck over determinism). Much of it was mean-spirited, unscientific, and mostly name-calling--a case of the left-eating-the-left. That said, many scientists have critiqued her analyses on more scientific grounds and shown it to be lacking. More generally, politics hasn't necessarily limited her research (she has many admirers, including me) and she continues to publish well-vetted studies. It's more that her research has alternative interpretations (that hinges on mostly technical stuff like polygenic risk scores suffering from severe collider bias, and that the Genome-wide association studies that she relies on, have too many hidden population stratifications to be robust) and thus doesn't necessary qualify as first-rate, in the sense that there are still a few unknowns.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

This would be fantastic if it pans out

With the recent base editing success, immunotherapies and now this the signs are that at last we might be moving toward a much brighter future regarding cancer.