General reply, mildly prompted by the conversation:
Anyone who believes ‘science’ that suits a predetermined policy goal can’t be bought with grant money is naive.
CDC paid for no end of ‘gun violence as an epidemiological problem’ studies back in the '90s. That the bulk of the research trended the same way in it’s findings wasn’t a coincidence.
You clearly have no regard for science. What exactly is guiding you?
The reality is this time, or a little later, last year there was a lot of talk about a rushed vaccine and distrust of the vaccine because of the administration in charge at the time. Let’s face it, there was plenty of doubt about the vaccine pushed out there as it was being developed and that could certainly have turned many people off that would otherwise have trusted our vaccine development efforts Sadly we are our own worst enemy sometimes.
Outside Europe and the Americas, few places release data about excess deaths. No such information exists for large swathes of Africa and Asia, where some countries only issue death certificates for a small fraction of people. For these places without national mortality data, The Economist has produced estimates of excess deaths using statistical models trained on the data in this tracker (as explained in our methodology post). In India, for example, our estimates suggest that perhaps 2.3m people had died from covid-19 by the start of May 2021, compared with about 200,000 official deaths.
There is “good science” and there is “bad science”. There are plenty of researchers who make up/falsify data for their own personal gain, be it monetary or advancement. I’ve seen too many people be promoted to top positions who have falsified their own data. A well-known example is the vaccine-autism link in the UK paper, which has been determined to be false, but we are still dealing with the ramifications of people who believe it. That’s bad science. I think we can all agree that the level of scrutiny in what’s going on now, from peer-review, public review, media coverage, and multiple government, public and private entities and their review and internal studies, is good science.
The New York Times had an article that touched on this subject today. It was depressing. I had not fully appreciated how offering the J&J vaccines in inner cities and then withdrawing them due to concerns exacerbated distrust.
catahoula is your classic anti-science COVID denier and is not worth engaging. He/she cannot be reasoned with, and will just raise your blood pressure trying.
DO NOT ENGAGE!!! I REPEAT----DO NOT ENGAGE!!!
IGNORE!!! IGNORE!!! IGNORE!!!
(above “rant” is meant in semi-jest)
It’s sad, and now the unvaccinated bear a disproportionate level of risk and burden from Delta.
I know the thought process of some isn’t necessary rational, but seeing that the three EUA vaccines have been given to hundreds of millions of people should give doubters a high level of confidence. Hopefully Pfizer gaining full approval soon will also change some minds.
Actually this is pretty much how science works. The differences can be myriad, different control groups, different location, different population, mistakes made by a scientist. Eventually a consensus will be reached.
YES @mathmom, that’s exactly how science works. I taught the atomic theory by going through the progression of how the concept of the atom changed over time, from being a featureless marble-like object, to a solar system-like object with orbiting electrons, to the fuzzy quantum-mechanical model of today.
I recall a cartoon (maybe a Far Side or Doonesbury?), where an evolution denier is told by his doctor that he needs a penicillin shot. The doctor asks if he wants the original 1928 version, that is powerless against today’s variants, or a modern one that will kill the new variants? (He opts for the modern version)
I know who I blame.
I can understand the hesitance after the J&J situation.
My oldest son got the J&J as he just wanted the ease of one shot. I would have also gotten it if it had been available at my appointment. My younger son got Pfizer as that’s what his age qualified him for. My wife and I both ended up with Moderna.
There is certainly a lot of information out there that individuals must digest in their own mind and in their own time in making these decisions. I don’t fault people for doing their research and hopefully making good decisions for themselves and their families.
It wasn’t me, but it’s a great question.
Where did you heard that? On Facebook? Any evidence on this?
I was invited to a party yesterday. Only vaccinated members of our group were invited. This took place in front of one woman who knows she was openly excluded because she has not been vaccinated. Peer pressure and shunning might work.
Once the vaccines receive full approval in the next month or so, the anti-vax crowd will latch on to some other excuse. I am sure of it.
Doesn’t say whether the child or parent was vaccinated, but this kind of behavior is just infuriating.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/12/us/reno-nevada-school-covid-exposure/index.html
That refers to this paper:
which has this image:
Regarding people with PhDs, the graph suggests that they mostly made up their minds quickly and did not change them over the time period shown. In contrast, most groups had declining hesitancy, suggesting a significant number of undecided or hesitant-but-not-strongly-opposed views in the earlier stages.
Note that the time period shown ends with May, which is barely when everyone could start getting vaccinated easily. It was also before the B.1.617.2 / Delta variant hit the US.
Yes, I saw the paper. Didn’t link; figured data people would be able to find it. Respectfully, not sure why you state the obvious. It’s well explained even if one is not a data nerd - not used in a pejorative manner. I appreciate all angles of knowledge.
