Coronavirus outbreak

[thedestroyerofworlds]

1 hour ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

There were mistakes. Though I think that was due to not knowing at the time, then being presented with new data, so they changed their recommendations. I dont think it was due to being deceptive. 

 

Examples:

Vaccines will stop transmission of the virus.

They initially thought the vaccines gave longer lasting protection.

Prior infection is not protective.

 

Now we know differently and that's okay.

Another poster trotted this point.  The examples he gave were from first half of 2021.  Prior to the height of the Delta wave and before Omicron took hold.  If/when those claims were made, it was at a time when the vaccines were more effective and the virus wasn't as contagious as the later variants became.

 

Demonstrate that this talking point was regularly trotted out this year and you may have a point.

[KristoffWixenschon]

1 hour ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Another poster trotted this point.  The examples he gave were from first half of 2021.  Prior to the height of the Delta wave and before Omicron took hold.  If/when those claims were made, it was at a time when the vaccines were more effective and the virus wasn't as contagious as the later variants became.

 

Demonstrate that this talking point was regularly trotted out this year and you may have a point.

That's actually the whole point I'm making. 

 

The entire point is that they were wrong. They did make a mistake. Yes this was being said last year, until they learned more and collected more data. 

 

Initially the vaccines did look to have great success in preventing disease and transmission. As time went on, it was discovered that the neutralizing antibodies which prevent you from becoming ill, start to wane after 3-6 months after immunization. 

 

It was an unintentional mistake. 

[JM_]

12 hours ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

That's actually the whole point I'm making. 

 

The entire point is that they were wrong. They did make a mistake. Yes this was being said last year, until they learned more and collected more data. 

 

Initially the vaccines did look to have great success in preventing disease and transmission. As time went on, it was discovered that the neutralizing antibodies which prevent you from becoming ill, start to wane after 3-6 months after immunization. 

 

It was an unintentional mistake. 

I'm not sure using the term 'mistake' is really accurate tho. Viruses can be a moving target to deal with, and this one is slippery. You have to go with the best option based on what you know at the time, and adjust. 

 

I see a bigger problem with some corners of the public need for overly simplistic messaging and absolutes. 

[Alflives]

9 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I'm not sure using the term 'mistake' is really accurate tho. Viruses can be a moving target to deal with, and this one is slippery. You have to go with the best option based on what you know at the time, and adjust. 

 

I see a bigger problem with some corners of the public need for overly simplistic messaging and absolutes. 

Thankfully science got us to the point now (with vaccines for Covid) where the people who foolishly choose to avoid vaccines aren’t seriously impacting those of us who are vaccinated.  

[DrJockitch]

9 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I'm not sure using the term 'mistake' is really accurate tho. Viruses can be a moving target to deal with, and this one is slippery. You have to go with the best option based on what you know at the time, and adjust. 

 

I see a bigger problem with some corners of the public need for overly simplistic messaging and absolutes. 

Not understanding how something works and not having a background to understand it is the position of the press when communicating science, unfortunately that is best case scenario as the news agencies now act as political agents. The politicians are worse because they decide their stance and than look for “facts” (often not accurate) to fit their narrative. Unfortunately we have shifted to many news agencies first looking for their narrative and twisting stories around them.  Social media presents everything as facts even though most of it is made up and more often than not mis-information created to distort the truth in ways that serve political agents. 
‘That immunity wains is not new or unexpected, it is why most vaccines have boosters. 
Great point at the end. This is what we need, simple messaging the problem is a lot of people just assume they can interpret the complicated parts with no background knowledge and the politicians step all over messages they see as inconvenient. 

[DrJockitch]

Oh and vaccines did significantly reduce transmission especially of the strains they were targeted at. There are numbers between 0% and 100%. 
The virus mutated as viruses do and we don’t yet know what the efficacy of the vaccines against Omicron will have as they are just rolling out and they are different between Moderna and Pfizer this time to make things more complicated. 

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Not understanding how something works and not having a background to understand it is the position of the press when communicating science, unfortunately that is best case scenario as the news agencies now act as political agents. The politicians are worse because they decide their stance and than look for “facts” (often not accurate) to fit their narrative. Unfortunately we have shifted to many news agencies first looking for their narrative and twisting stories around them.  Social media presents everything as facts even though most of it is made up and more often than not mis-information created to distort the truth in ways that serve political agents. 
‘That immunity wains is not new or unexpected, it is why most vaccines have boosters. 
Great point at the end. This is what we need, simple messaging the problem is a lot of people just assume they can interpret the complicated parts with no background knowledge and the politicians step all over messages they see as inconvenient. 

Media bias and politics are the main issues for sure. 

 

It does surprise me that people have the attitude of "when will the shots end"? we get a new flu shot every year, but no one complains about that? 

 

[JM_]

14 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Thankfully science got us to the point now (with vaccines for Covid) where the people who foolishly choose to avoid vaccines aren’t seriously impacting those of us who are vaccinated.  

whats really exciting about the mRNA work is the potential to treat cancer. Pretty exciting stuff. I wonder how many of the anti-vaxxers will skip new cancer treatments in a few years?

[DrJockitch]

23 minutes ago, JM_ said:

Media bias and politics are the main issues for sure. 

 

It does surprise me that people have the attitude of "when will the shots end"? we get a new flu shot every year, but no one complains about that? 

 

Lots do actually.  It just isn’t as political so doesn’t get yelled as loudly. 

[DrJockitch]

21 minutes ago, JM_ said:

whats really exciting about the mRNA work is the potential to treat cancer. Pretty exciting stuff. I wonder how many of the anti-vaxxers will skip new cancer treatments in a few years?

That is a next step.

There is some very interesting mRNA based technology coming.

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

That is a next step.

There is some very interesting mRNA based technology coming.

what worries me about science getting politicized like it has been over the last two years is, do governments stop or severely cut basic science funding? how far will the religious right wing take this stuff if they gain power in the US, e.g. ?

 

[Jimmy James]

24 minutes ago, JM_ said:

what worries me about science getting politicized like it has been over the last two years is, do governments stop or severely cut basic science funding? how far will the religious right wing take this stuff if they gain power in the US, e.g. ?

 

One take away is that the last two years has seen the largest global collaboration in history, quickest funding and fastest/best testing in history. That’s a lot of good.

 

Remember how hypocritical the religious right is. Trump is the perfect example. Morning prayers with the most aggressive evangelists, and yet he still was vaccinated and also received some of the first Covid treatments. 
 

They are the most scared. They will always talk a mean conspiracy game, but will quietly fund anything of concern or threat to themselves. 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Jimmy James

[DrJockitch]

25 minutes ago, JM_ said:

what worries me about science getting politicized like it has been over the last two years is, do governments stop or severely cut basic science funding? how far will the religious right wing take this stuff if they gain power in the US, e.g. ?

 

The world is learning to move on without US leadership. In science it is more important than ever to not depend on them. 

[KristoffWixenschon]

2 hours ago, JM_ said:

I'm not sure using the term 'mistake' is really accurate tho. Viruses can be a moving target to deal with, and this one is slippery. You have to go with the best option based on what you know at the time, and adjust. 

 

I see a bigger problem with some corners of the public need for overly simplistic messaging and absolutes. 

You're right, mistake is not the right word. I should have just stopped at saying "they were wrong".

 

I dont think it was a problem that they were wrong. Being wrong is expected as you sort out what is true. I was just replying to a poster who didnt feel that public health had gotten anything wrong during the pandemic. 

They certainly got some things wrong. Its crazy to say they didnt. But it's also crazy to expect that they should be expected to get it right 100% of the time.

 

You are absolutely correct in your last paragraph. People feel really uncomfortable in those unknown grey areas. We could all benefit by understanding that this is a process, not a defined certainty.

[thedestroyerofworlds]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

whats really exciting about the mRNA work is the potential to treat cancer. Pretty exciting stuff. I wonder how many of the anti-vaxxers will skip new cancer treatments in a few years?

MY guess is that very few will skip new cancer treatments.  Those that do will end up like Steve Jobs.

 

I guarantee that many anti-vaxxers are the type who will seek out just about any treatment should they get diagnosed with cancer.  If their oncologist suggests mRNA treatment, very few will say nope.  Some will even beg to get that treatment, even if it is in the experimental stages.  Just like a lot of people do when faced with a diagnosis that could be or is fatal.

[KristoffWixenschon]

2 hours ago, JM_ said:

Media bias and politics are the main issues for sure. 

 

It does surprise me that people have the attitude of "when will the shots end"? we get a new flu shot every year, but no one complains about that? 

 

These vaccines are a little different than the flu shot. One interesting example is that we choose which strain of flu to inoculate against in the fall, based on what has been circulating in the southern hemisphere during their winter. 

That cant really be done with covid yet. Again, its a constantly evolving target. 

 

But the original vaccines are still showing amazing efficacy at keeping people out of hospital and keeping people alive! That's a pretty good end goal.

[KristoffWixenschon]

1 hour ago, DrJockitch said:

The world is learning to move on without US leadership. In science it is more important than ever to not depend on them. 

You're right. The world depends largely on US innovation and achievement. I guess that's one benefit on unfettered capitalism haha...

I always struggle with that duality. On the one hand, pharmaceutical companies certainly put shareholder profit above public wellbeing, that's a problem. On the other hand, they innovate amazing life saving products! If they weren't allowed to be making insane money on their products, would we have so many incredible treatments?

[DrJockitch]

21 minutes ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

You're right. The world depends largely on US innovation and achievement. I guess that's one benefit on unfettered capitalism haha...

I always struggle with that duality. On the one hand, pharmaceutical companies certainly put shareholder profit above public wellbeing, that's a problem. On the other hand, they innovate amazing life saving products! If they weren't allowed to be making insane money on their products, would we have so many incredible treatments?

Some of the innovation comes from the companies but more often then not they are using technology developed in conjunction with publicly funded institutions.  They profit off taxes while lobbying against paying them and charging ludicrous costs. 

[KristoffWixenschon]

17 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Some of the innovation comes from the companies but more often then not they are using technology developed in conjunction with publicly funded institutions.  They profit off taxes while lobbying against paying them and charging ludicrous costs. 

Most of the innovation comes from the private sector. 

There is of course collaboration and I dont want to take away from the great innovative work done at universities and federally funded organizations.

Edited October 22, 2022 by KristoffWixenschon

[DrJockitch]

2 minutes ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

Most of the innovation comes from the private sector. 

There is of course collaboration and I dont want to take away from the great innovative work done at universities and federally funded organizations.

Having spent a number of years in biotech I would argue the opposite. Most of the innovations come from the universities. It is just implemented in commercial uses by pharmaceuticals and biotech companies.  There is often quite a bridge between the two with lots of biotech having partnerships with universities. 
mRNA tech is a great example. The backbone of that came through academic channels. It was fine tuned and scaled up for mass production by pharmaceutical companies.