This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yesterday’s conspiracy theory is today’s quiet admission
Bare link post: The Federalist covers the latest CDC admission about the vaccine: the myocarditis risk among the young and healthy is larger than official sources claimed.
Along with the recent addition of Ivermectin to the list of possible effective treatments, I believe this vindicates the front-line doctors and makes mass murderers of the censors, as well-intentioned as those who smashed sparrows for Mao.
I see the concern about truth-telling being quashed with regards to myocarditis being more prevalent than reported, but the magnitude of that risk is still fairly minimal at 0.018% in the worst case. "Makes mass murderers of the censors" is quite an exaggeration for such a small and treatable risk, at least with respect to myocarditis; I'm not up to date on the current Ivermectin data.
How does that compare to the risk of serious COVID complications among the same cohort?
my long comment below answers this question!
More options
Context Copy link
Last I recall risk of death in the under-25 group due to covid was 0.003%. Risk of death from myocarditis is <1% according to a comment farther down in the thread, so risk of death due to myocarditis from covid vaccination would be 0.00018%; so about 17x more likely to die from covid than myocarditis from covid vaccination, doing a direct comparison of vaccine vs covid case. I assume serious complications (but not death) would be around the same probability.
You also assume that "get the vaccine" and "get covid" are mutually exclusive -- which does not seem to be remotely the case post-last-December or so. Not to mention that whichever under-25s are dying of covid are very likely in an extremely well-defined 'at risk group' -- maybe those people should take the vaccine, but "0.003% population aggregate" is not nearly the same as "0.003% of otherwise healthy under-25s".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Something I've been thinking a lot about as I see a well-intentioned president Trump struggle against the power in this country is the fallibility of human government. Are you sure you're not overreacting to human fallibility?
Trump was on the right side of history, and I think it's important to retain belief that there is a right side of history and people can be on it.
The CDC was more concerned about getting the vaccine out than perfect safety. Does that really make them mass murderers?
Was he? It's his vaccine, as he proudly claimed.
IIRC, the CDC postponed the vaccine until after the election, whereas Trump wanted it out before the election. I don't see how you can praise Trump as "right" while comdeming the CDC as vaccine hawks, when Trump was pressuring them to release it earlier than they did.
Hot take - the existence of the vaccine is good, as was the rushed development process. The mandatory dosing of everyone, regardless of risk analysis for various cohorts, was bad.
More options
Context Copy link
Wait, are you telling me Trump ordered the FDA to bypass safety protocols to get the vaccine out??
Is that an honest question or are trying to twist someone's words?
In either case, the status of the vaccine around the timing of the election is known. Eric Topol has been very vocal about his part in delaying the vaccine until after the election. We've since learned that Pfizer, who Topol said he successfully targeted, decided to simply stop processing lab samples in order to delay approval until after the election:
Honest question.
So the FDA postponed the vaccine until after the election in order to deny Trump a victory??
The role the FDA played in the delay isn't quite clear. Pfizer revised their protocol after discussion with the FDA, but there's no evidence that this was politically motivated. Protocols get revised sometimes.
Their decision to halt testing samples seems to have no other explanation except to delay any announcement of progress until after the election.
Had they not decided to halt testing of samples, they would have met their revised 62 case threshold prior to the election. Had they not submitted for approval at that point it would have been more obvious that they were dragging their feet.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Considering the lenghts they and their allies went to discredit any other viewpoint for something on the level of an Influenza, it could be argued that at the very least they are incompetent. But if we take in consideration:
1.- The level of coordination between the parties (intended or unintended as part of the Protect the Narrative campaign)
2.- That there is a high chance Ecohealth efforts and by proxi Faucci's whole cabal are indirectly responsible for the pandemic
3.- That even after it was grokked out that it wasn't Ebola or the Black Death in airborne form, the mayority of the catedral refused to actualize priors.
4.- And that we will never know the why, how and when of the Pandemic due to the collusion of the Chinese CCP and gain of function establishment.
I would say that yeah, at least indirectly responsible of mass murder. And that is without taking into account the Nursery homes murders in New York and elsewhere (Minesota I think) and events like that. There wasn't self policing, just like with any other progressive cause as of late. Just an intransigency to give an inch on any front.
Explain to me, if you would, your preoccupation with Fauci.
All I know is the government said take the vaccine, so I took it. I knew there was a chance of side effects but I judged them to be negligible. Vaccines aren't scary.
1.- He lied to congress with the "Gain of function" research by torturing the meaning of words.
2.- He is part of inhuman experimentation in dogs (inhuman in that they could anesthetize them instead of letting them suffer like it was reported)
3.- In his own words "He is the science", sounds too Palpatine for my tastes. If I wanted an emperor I would want a competent one.
4.- His continual refusal to condemn the BLM riots as a health concern.
I think you've become overpoliticized on this.
Faucci became overpoliticized, I just have memory longer than a goldfish. If you just wanted to defend him, may as well have said so from the beginning intead of acting all coy and "asking questions".
If you don't want to face questions I think you're in the wrong place.
And I repeat, If you just wanted to defend him, may as well have said so from the beginning instead of acting all coy and "asking questions" and when answered then launch ad hominem attacks. You may want to drop the passive-aggressiveness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It was not and is not a "vaccine."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think a blank endorsement of any president is a good idea, especially Trump.
At the end of the day you need someone who recognizes that American government has to be for Americans, and that's Trump.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Tell me when I can apply for reinstatement to subs that banned me for COVID misinformation. My guess is It just was confirmation I was wrong tribe.
Go for it. Why can't you apply for reinstatement now?
I don't expect them to accept your request, but it's not like they can do anything worse than super-banning you for asking.
Ok I just did
Thanks, I'm interested in hearing what happens. I suspect that you're right, but I want to avoid arguing from imaginary evidence:
Predictably mods didn’t reply
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well the worst thing in that case would be that he wasted his time that could have been better employed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you referring to the NIH page here?
You're not the first person I've heard refer to this as backpedaling, but I don't think it actually is backpedaling. They say in this post:
If there's a separate CDC admission you're referring to, I'd be curious to see.
More options
Context Copy link
Where did they add Ivermectin to the list though?
I personally surmised that the vaccine risk was probably larger than claimed, but it's worth remembering that many conspiracy theorists made huge claims about the risks, sometimes going as far as to claim that there would be evident mass dieoffs already at this phase, that the vaxx would be a practical death sentence within a few years etc. If one has made those kinds of claims, I don't feel it would be then right to pivot to "I was right all along! Another one for the "conspiracy theorists!"" if a considerably milder claim of vaccine ill-effects turns out to be true.
"Risk was higher than admitted" is a thing that happens in 50% of cases, and even more often if you accept any risk or even a transient rise in the scientific data.
More options
Context Copy link
And the worldwide increase in all-cause mortality doesn't hint that this might be at least somewhat accurate? How many "sudden adult death syndrome" articles are there, and how many news blurbs about people "dying suddenly" that pointedly omit actual cause of death?
The study being referred to here does not show such dieoffs.
The rise in excess mortality in, for instance, various European countries can have many possible explanations, inclucing Covid itself (acute disease or post-Covid complications) and the deferral of health care / general overburdening of the health system during the acute parts of the pandemic. One would really need to have rather specific scientific studies to confidently lay all of it, or even most of it, on the vaccine, as the antivaxxers currently appear to be doing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, it really isn't worth remembering. The question isn't whether there was some group of "conspiracy theorists" who were more incorrect in magnitude than the CDC (and if so, the CDC is off the hook, nothing to see here, move along). The question is whether accurate information was labeled "conspiracy theory" and suppressed, and whether the CDC put out wrong information either deliberately or mistakenly with far too much certainty.
Of course that's a more important point to consider, but I'd still think there's always a reason for pointing out motte-and-bailey behavior at this very forum.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Taking the federalist (please don't link to political/general news websites about science/study stuff, they're universally terrible sources) at their word for the moment - "[...] within a week of receiving the “Dose 2 Primary Series” of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, there were 14 verified cases of myocarditis or pericarditis among the 102,091 males aged 16-17 who got the shot. Among the nearly 206,000 12-15-year-old males [...] 31 cases were confirmed within a week". This comes out to a rate of 1.3/10k for 16-17 and 1.5/10k for 12-15. Using a relatively recent table of the age distribution for approximate numbers, and just multiplying that number by the 10-19 population, and just assuming they all got vaccinated, gives 3135 cases of (using their claims) vaccine-induced myocarditis or pericarditis.
From another study - In COVID-19 mRNA-vaccine-associated myocarditis, >90% of patients will functionally completely recover, usually after a chest pain syndrome (see Supplementary information). To date, only eight deaths owing to COVID-19 mRNA-vaccine-associated myocarditis have been reported (>99% survival) (see Supplementary information)." (1-.99) * 3135 = 35 deaths. Which is less than the number of covid deaths in the '5-18' age group (which i'm guessing is mostly the 10-19 age group) - 910 - by quite a bit. The supplementary information was just a list of case reports or studies, and the ones that include fatalities were: (i may not be interpreting this correctly fyi) were "27yo male with trisomy 21", "22yo male with fatal outcome, from Korea", "351 cases (8 fatal", "62yo female with fatal outcome", "42yo male (fatal)", "Case series of 136; one fatal; rate 150/million after 2nd dose in 16-19yo males, in Israel", "70yo female with fatal outcome", "18 post vaccine deaths ... 1 myocarditis", etc, and a many more studies with no deaths. I'm not sure where precisely they got 99% from given the SI is just a big list of references but if you add up all of the studies they present, 99% seems accurate. There are also a bunch of studies evaluating risk/benefit for covid vaccines for adolescents, most claiming it's worth it but a few claiming it is not. (in practice, i'm not sure it matters either way, given the very low risk of both covid harm and myocarditis harm. also, covid itself causes myocarditis, probably at a similar rate to the vaccine in young people, but idk). There's also a funny withdrawn article, "Case series of 32 patients in Canada. Although case series was clinically valid, initial estimate of rate was inflated by using denominator of 30,000 instead of 800,000".
It also has "By contrast, the incidence of COVID-19-associated cardiac injury or myocarditis is estimated to be 100 times higher (1,000–1,400 per 100,000 people with COVID-19) than that of COVID-19 mRNA-vaccine-related myocarditis7. Moreover, in contrast to the overall mild presentation and good outcome of vaccine-associated myocarditis, COVID-19 is associated with a major risk of cardiovascular complications8. Among patients with COVID-19, 10% of outpatients and 40% of hospitalized patients have clinically significant myocardial injury, mostly in the absence of clinically significant coronary artery disease8. Advanced age and pre-existing comorbidities (obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension or renal dysfunction) are the main predisposing factors for cardiovascular complications in patients with COVID-19".
For people under 20 specifically - for myocarditis from covid infections - here we get "Results: For the 12-17-year-old male cohort, 6/6,846 (0.09%) patients developed myocarditis overall, with an adjusted rate per million of 450 cases (Wilson score interval 206 - 982). For the 12-15 and 16-19 male age groups, the adjusted rates per million were 601 (257 - 1,406) and 561 (240 - 1,313).". This is higher than even your estimate of 1.5/10k. Now, this is comparing 'covid cases' to 'covid vaccination recipients' - which obviously aren't the same, if only 1 in 100 adolescents ever got covid (or, if they all got covid but only the severe cases were counted as 'cases'), that'd mean the vaccine was worse (again assuming those numbers are fine). But they probably are given the large-scale testing etc.
I haven't triple-checked all the math estimate stuff and very likely one or more of them is wrong. But this isn't "mass murder". Healthcare has plenty of disgusting parts - giving obese people pills mildly improving QALYs while they're fattened by well advertised corn, wheat, sugar, and oil paste, unnecessary surgeries, spending tens of thousands on cancer treatments that extend life by like a month, or not at all, pumping all sorts of treatments into barely alive old people to prolong their painful, pointless end, etc. This isn't one, afaict, the effectiveness of vaccines compared to their cost (one shot per year vs one pill per day?) is an outlier for most of medicine.
The choice isn't between getting the vaccine and getting Covid, even if you're vaccinated you're almost certainly going to get Covid eventually. So why does this matter at all? It does nothing to show that e.g. getting the vaccine will meaningfully reduce your chances of cardiac injury if you do get Covid, especially if you're young.
I'd strongly expect it to do so in the same way that 'natural immunity' does, though. I don't have any evidence it does that in adolescents, but it intuitively makes sense that it does.
Either way, all of these numbers are just low. Adolescents getting vaccinated doesn't matter much. Either for their covid death risk or their myocarditis risk. Any 'public health' effort focused on that and not mcdonalds or packaged muffins is hilariously wasted.
More options
Context Copy link
If you have a specific study on the effects of vaccination on post-Covid cardiac injury, especially among e.g. young men, then please share it.
The effects of the Covid vaccine in reducing the likelihood of infection are distinctly time-limited, and the reduction in symptoms and severity likewise seems to fade with time, but more slowly. The real question is whether the time-averaged reduction is enough to compensate for whatever increase in risk of cardiac injury the vaccine itself induces. And it seems like a legitimate question whether the vaccine helps with cardiac injury if that’s the primary adverse effect it tends to cause. It’s not like there are a bunch of other Covid symptoms the vaccine is associated with too.
No, it's not. Large-scale studies, e.g. from Qatar, have found that protection against infection rapidly wanes to around 20% within 6 months. That's negligible. Raw CDC data is totally inadequate, it has no cohort-matching, no time-matching, and no controls.
We agree here.
What I said is perfectly compatible with Covid vaccines offering some reduction in your chances of cardiac injury. But the vaccines themselves pose a risk of cardiac injury, so the question is what the combined risk ends up being. And no one in this thread, especially not you, has given any data on that question. This is especially salient because the demographic at most risk of cardiac injury from the vaccine, young men, are among the least at risk from severe Covid symptoms.
Oh, silly me, it's an inflammation response. Well, everyone knows that only heart tissues can get inflamed, so that perfectly explains things!
If a vaccine messes with a particular tissue that the virus it's supposed to stop also messes with, why should I take that as a positive indicator in favor of its protecting that tissue from the virus, especially if it doesn't induce symptoms of the virus in general besides that?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Just dropping in to say that after the last 2 years I don't think using the CDC as a source has the punch you think it does.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thank you for putting numbers to what I was thinking.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link