COVID-19: People on the internet are judging me for going outside. It used to be the reverse.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > COVID-19: People on the internet are judging me for going outside. It used to be the reverse.

«‹›7 »

Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed.
Black Beauty	2	1.06%
A Talking Pony!?!	4	2.13%
Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor	117	62.23%
War Horse	11	5.85%
Mr. Hands	54	28.72%
Total:	188 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Vox's Antivax Bookshelf
I'm going to read and provide summaries and commentary on books covering the antivax movement for this thread, crossposting with the pseudoscience thread. These are not necessarily all going to be good sources- some may be bad commentaries or cash-ins, or even books by antivax authors. I'm happy to take suggestions for additional books to read. This post will serve as my index.

Currently planned:

Stuck: How Vaccine Rumors Start -- and Why They Don't Go Away by Heidi J. Larson

The jacket posted:

Vaccine reluctance and refusal are no longer limited to the margins of society. Debates around vaccines' necessity - along with questions around their side effects -- have gone mainstream, blending with geopolitical conflicts, political campaigns, celebrity causes, and "natural" lifestyles to win a growing number of hearts and minds. Today's anti-vaccine positions find audiences where they've never existed previously.

Stuck examines how the issues surrounding vaccine hesitancy are, more than anything, about people feeling left out of the conversation. A new dialogue is long overdue, one that addresses the many types of vaccine hesitancy and the social factors that perpetuate them. To do this, Stuck provides a clear-eyed examination of the social vectors that transmit vaccine rumors, their manifestations around the globe, and how these individual threads are all connected.

Anti-vaxxers: How to challenge a Misinformed Movement by Jonathan M. Berman

Amazon posted:

A history of the anti-vaccination movement, from its nineteenth-century antecedents to today's anti-vax activism, offering strategies for refuting its claims.
Vaccines are a documented success story, one of the most successful public health interventions in history. Yet there is a vocal anti-vaccination movement, featuring celebrity activists (including Kennedy scion Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and actress Jenny McCarthy) and the propagation of anti-vax claims through books, documentaries, and social media. In Anti-Vaxxers, Jonathan Berman explores the phenomenon of the anti-vaccination movement, recounting its history from its nineteenth-century antecedents to today's activism, examining its claims, and suggesting a strategy for countering them.

After providing background information on vaccines and how they work, Berman describes resistance to Britain's Vaccination Act of 1853, showing that the arguments anticipate those made by today's anti-vaxxers. He discusses the development of new vaccines in the twentieth century, including those protecting against polio and MMR (measles, mumps, rubella), and the debunked paper that linked the MMR vaccine to autism; the CDC conspiracy theory promoted in the documentary Vaxxed; recommendations for an alternative vaccination schedule; Kennedy's misinformed campaign against thimerosal; and the much-abused religious exemption to vaccination.

Anti-vaxxers have changed their minds, but rarely because someone has given them a list of facts. Berman argues that anti-vaccination activism is tied closely to how people see themselves as parents and community members. Effective pro-vaccination efforts should emphasize these cultural aspects rather than battling social media posts.

The doctor who fooled the world: science, deception and the war on vaccines by Brian Deer

Amazon posted:

From San Francisco to Shanghai, from Vancouver to Venice, controversy over vaccines is erupting around the globe. Fear is spreading. Banished diseases have returned. And a militant "anti-vax" movement has surfaced to campaign against immunization. But why?

In The Doctor Who Fooled the World, award-winning investigative reporter Brian Deer exposes the truth behind the crisis. Writing with the page-turning tension of a detective story, he unmasks the players and unearths the facts. Where it began. Who was responsible. How they pulled it off. Who paid.

At the heart of this dark narrative is the rise of the so-called "father of the anti-vaccine movement": a British-born doctor, Andrew Wakefield. Banned from medicine, thanks to Deer's discoveries, he fled to the United States to pursue his ambitions, and now claims to be winning a "war."

In an epic investigation spread across fifteen years, Deer battles medical secrecy and insider cover-ups, smear campaigns and gagging lawsuits, to uncover rigged research and moneymaking schemes, the heartbreaking plight of families struggling with disability, and the scientific scandal of our time.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Sep 14, 2021

# ¿ Sep 14, 2021 01:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 23, 2024 10:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hellmaker's correct on the facts when it comes to pediatric trials. As it stands with the EUAs and departures already in force (for globally administered vaccines, mind, the most high-scrutiny category there is), the FDA's situation is impossibly fraught and the organization's under unimaginable pressure.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2021 01:47

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Jaxyon posted:

Corporates America update:

Hybrid model. We are going to require vaccines at my medium sized (over 1000 employees) business for in-office work, but:

1) We allow medical and humanitarian exemptions

2) No proof required, it's via attestation only.

If you think this raises a lot of questions....congratulations, you must have been at our office meeting.

And for those wondering how much federal state and local rules matter, we operate in 30+ countries and the official corporate line is that we go by whatever the public health rules are where we are.

Which means that countries with a fraction of the US infection rate have closed offices but the US is "open 'er up"

It's unlikely attestation will be sufficient under the OSHA rule.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2021 22:21

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

The FDA displaying garbage stats from the public with their logo directly next to it during today�s hearing is going a well as you�d expect:

https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1438910319116627968?s=20

It�s good to know that both the CDC and FDA are incompetent.

This is the standard format for how the agency does this kind of event. It's been that way for years. No one who has even the slightest knowledge or interest other than sick burns or abuse is falling for this.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2021 20:08

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

mod sassinator posted:

Yes, why should the FDA amplify antivaxxers under any circumstances?

Public comment could have been done at a different time and not impacted anything. Or they could have chosen to only take written comments.

You do not know anything about how public comment works, and you are looking for and recirculating things you can abuse to reinforce your prior beliefs.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2021 20:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

lil poopendorfer posted:

...so no direct rebuttal to his points, I take it

It's a public comment meeting. it's for comment from the public. The government straight up cannot do the things you are demanding, and you are demanding them, in bad faith, on the basis of their bad faith abuse by others.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2021 21:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

Maybe not have the big �FDA� logo next to it at the very least. There are at least steps the FDA can take other than allowing full PowerPoint presentations and then ignoring data from scientists to allow more people to get sick and die. That�s just me though.

Every part of this was already addressed, multiple times. You've not responded to any of the effort or knowledge of the people in this thread with expertise who have explained how these things actually work.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2021 21:07

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Professor Beetus posted:

I hate to do this but since things are getting a little bit spicy why don't put a pin in this for now?

I think most folks can agree with the sentiment behind these two posts. The government has to allow for public comments, this is a part of having a representative democracy. The FDA could have taken steps to make it clear to people that those were slides from a person presenting a slideshow as part of their public comment, in order to provide fodder for anti-vax hustlers.

Both of those takes seem reasonable enough that I think we can put a pin in it for now. If that's off base, let me know.

It's off base. I actually attend these meetings regularly. It is the normal format for public meetings, and the setup is not remotely confusing. The FDA does not have the ability to prevent people misrepresenting their work in bad faith.

OddObserver posted:

Broadly, I kinda wonder about that. Most cases involving public comments actually seem to turn out to be undemocratic, since they give advantage to people with lots of time on their hands (see e.g. all the "grassroots anti-CRT protests").... and, frankly, the point of the FDA is to make professional decisions, so what you and me think isn't likely to be very material?

It's a (very complex and extensive) legal obligation applicable to almost all regulatory activities. for example, here's a recent EPA docket I grabbed at random. The EPA is going to be required to open the proposed rule for comments for a set period of time. The final rule on this docket is going to have to respond to all of the comments that are related to the subject. Every part of this is dictated by a combination of precedents.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Sep 17, 2021

# ¿ Sep 17, 2021 21:41

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

If you're referring to Wakefield, he did most of his work in the UK and did lose his license. The problem is that the response was too slow and limited, and other people were also funding him- and had financial incentives to pick up where he left off. More broadly, although Wakefield was particularly harmful, the antivaxx movement and the incentives involved predate him.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2021 22:19

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

UCS Hellmaker posted:

Uh no, Wakefield did it because he was trying to discredit those vaccines in order to sell his own and make money. He actively went full hog in because he realized he was chained to the train he took off the tracks and lost his license and was fined I believed. He actively was discredited. He knows he lied through his teeth, his articles were fully falsified. He did it for monetary gain and without any thoughts he was right.

There's literally hundreds of books and information about this.

I'll be summarizing and reviewing Deer's book on this, eventually, and if I can get a used copy, I may do Wakefield's book as well.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2021 22:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Stickman posted:

Used sales just pass up value by offsetting primary sales. Just that heaping pile of poo poo. Or borrow it from an academic library (and never return it).

E: The thing that I never understood about Wakefield's paper is that it was utter poo poo with zero evidence even if it wasn't fraudulent. The lancet never should have published it in the first place, and it never should have received any academic attention.

I forget the specific circumstances (and will look into it), but as a general rule the prominent outlets (lancet, bmj, and especially science and especially fuckin' nature) that are less specialized or are highly centralized and public facing often have worse effective scrutiny on peer review. This doesn't make the contents of articles in those outlets automatically worthless, but I actually wind up applying more scrutiny toward them than field-specific ones. Part of this is just because they've got more active media/communications and so their output gets more coverage and promotion, but there are also institutional issues. I've got an effortpost lying around somewhere on the review of academic literature, I'll try to dig it up sometime.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2021 22:41

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hy_C posted:

That's correct, they only provide recommendations to the FDA. The FDA typically has go with the advisory committee's recommendations (googling around gave me ~75% figure but nothing official). The FDA does not in any shape or form have to follow their advice at all and most recently completely ignored the advisory committee when approving the Alzheimer's drug, Aduhelm (aducanumab).

The chair of the advisory committee Peter Marks is the CBER Director at the FDA (CBER approves and provides regulatory guidance over Vaccine approvals). During the call reminded the advisory committee the FDA does not have to follow their guidance so I would not be surprised if the booster approval is much broader than what was discussed and voted upon at the meeting. To top it off both the Acting FDA Commissioner and the White House have been in support for boosters too.

Conversely, FDA going against the Aduhelm recommendation was perhaps the biggest scandal in the past 30 years at the agency.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 02:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Let me get this straight: they removed their nonsignificant results and only reported the ones that showed effect. That's downright magical.

...do they control for familywise error?

edit: they do not. They do not even report on the sample structure in their protocol document.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Sep 18, 2021

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 03:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Phigs, you straight up do not know anything about the "technocratic bullshit" you are attacking. Just for one example, the FDA lost the ability to directly regulate prescription decisions due to a suit from WLF a long time ago (iirc the first case in the most recent run was 1997), and their ability to regulate related marketing activity has been under continuous attack ever since. It's the basis of the currently widespread practice of offlabeling and probably has an 8-digit deathtoll.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Sep 18, 2021

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 05:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

abelwingnut posted:

rosalind, thorn wishes talon, and ucs hellmaker, a couple of others, thank you for giving good information. i am not a doctor. i can barely tell me leg from my arm. but it�s obvious you know what you�re talking about. you easily distinguish yourselves from the know-it-all armchair epidemiologists in here and on twitter. i hope you continue to post, but i understand if you step away.

but before you might do that, i want to know of any other good, simple sources of information about covid you might recommend. i know there are the studies themselves, and the more celebrated sources like the lancet. but i feel they�re too technical for 99% of people. they are certainly too scary for me.

so that said, i�m just looking for any casual, accurate, serial podcasts/literature you trust. basically, it�d be lovely to know of anyone who can synthesize the studies and various other information about covid into an accurate view of what�s going on, then distill it into like a fifth grade-level discourse. or at least something somewhat digestible to laypersons like me. i�m just way too stupid to even know where to begin.

thanks.

One thing to be aware of if you're viewing all of this from the outside is to straight up not pursue information about recent studies. The scientific apparatus is supposed to work through critical peer review and interpretation of multiple studies of the same subject over time, and "a recent study" coverage in the general press is never, ever going to give you that, even in a situation where the information environment isn't as contaminated as this one. There is not really a substitute for the level of literacy and individual nuance and expertise that comes with directly reading a study and learning the subject. You need to become somewhat comfortable with uncertainty, because no matter how smart you are, uncertainty is the basic nature of the situation.

That said, I did a bunch of effortposts on information and covid for earlier iterations of this thread; they've not been added to the OP yet as I forgot to mention them, so I'll link them here.

Here's one post I wrote on some caveats about which sources of science to trust:
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3915397&userid=198104#post503908856

Here's a post on how to read science:
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3915397&userid=198104&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#post504891860

Here's a post about unhealthy relationships to information and covid:
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3915397&pagenumber=504&perpage=40#post504210939

Detailed, nonexhaustive explanation of conspiracy theories and takedown of one of the earliest sources of the Wuhan lab conspiracy:
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3915397&userid=198104&perpage=40&pagenumber=7#post514737951

Here are some useful basic sources on regulatory and monitoring issues and covid:

Here's the public-facing site for FDA on recent regulatory activity relating to COVID:
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/counterterrorism-and-emerging-threats/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19

Here's their FAQ page:
https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/covid-19-frequently-asked-questions

Here's the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, which is generally an excellent way to stay up to date on US public health issues generally (but requires greater literacy):
https://www.cdc.gov/MMWr/

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Sep 18, 2021

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 06:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Stickman posted:

Are you talking about in the vaccination month cohort comparison? Because FWEA is absolutely not necessary there - the primary comparison of interest is going to be early v late and FWEA is going to be massively overly conservative. Probably would have been better with splines, though.

No, as in they ran tests on several different entire populations and then excluded at least some of them from every part of their final publication. That's a layer above the cohort comparison, because they actually ran the test on a bunch of cohorts and (we know, from the slide deck) buried the ones without the results they wanted.

Phigs posted:

If they can't do that minimum I suggested then they should do whatever they can to ensure a person who wants a booster can get one. The FDA deciding if people people do or don't get boosters is technocratic by definition. It's a technocratic institution, which is not at all in itself a problem, often a good thing actually. I disagree with the decision given the pandemic and the evidence of minimal adverse affects. I think it's technocratic bullshit because they should relinquish their hold given the circumstances and I think they are not because they want to preserve the process and their position as technocratic gatekeepers more than they want to help people.

You appear to also not know what "technocratic" means, since you're using it to describe, simultaneously, "anything regulatory" and "anything I personally disagree with".

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 06:42

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Stickman posted:

Which papers and which tests are you referring to here? There's several papers / slides and a bunch of tables so it's really not clear to me what you're talking about.

I'm referring to the matter discussed in this post.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 07:00

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Phigs posted:

Hmm.

And FDA is a technocratic regulatory body because its staffed based on expertise. It's the very definition.

Yes, you are indeed very ignorant about how or why the FDA does things, in a manner motivated by the conclusions you want to reach.

Stickman posted:

Oh come on. That isn't "running tests on several populations and excluding them from the final publication". For starters there isn't a final publication. The waning analysis is just the pre-print. It references the preprints on waning immunity because apparently they don't have those in press yet. The slides don't include the table, but the figures contain all of the data in the table, just presented as rates per 1000 instead of as VE estimates. Like, literally 1-1 in the first two charts that Fitz posted. There are no tests anywhere, just confidence intervals. And again, the comparison of most interest is the earliest vaccinations vs the latest vaccinations so there is no reason to do FWEAs for the cohort errors, and each age cohort is of a priori individual interest.

There are no populations being excluded, there are no cohorts being swept under the rug, and there is no final paper that those things are happening in because the paper being discussed is a different analysis (booster analysis vs waning immunity for two-shot vax).

My apologies, I got confused by the way it was presented because the paper is being cited to argue for cohorts not in the analysis. I still disagree about the lack of importance for FWEA, especially where presentation of data is selective.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 07:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Mr Luxury Yacht posted:

Is there an age breakdown on the deaths/hospitalizations for breakthroughs?

Similar data up here noted a number of cases but they were heavily concentrated in older demographics (with zero deaths under 50 and only two under 60). Basically supporting urgency on a booster for seniors but less so for younger folks.

CDC has a number of breakdowns of breakthrough infection distributions through the MMWR site I posted earlier.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 18:19

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

mod sassinator posted:

What is legitimately stopping a state like California or Washington from saying "FDA, we see you, we hear you, and we are going ahead with our own approval of vaccine boosters for our population." ? If Texas, Florida, etc. can decide to ban mask mandates, ban vaccine mandates or flagrantly violate and ignore federal rules why can't a blue state decide it's done the research and boosters are on the menu. What are the feds going to do, send in the DHS to kick down vaccine clinic doors? They couldn't even police state's marijuana sales (which are still federally illegal!).

States do not even have a mechanism for medication approval. States cannot nullify federal authority. We fought a war over this. Marijuana enforcement is an entirely different form of authority tied to the 10th amendment's police power. State ability to ignore other federal authorities is tied to rejecting associated federal programs and funding.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 23:19

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

HonorableTB posted:

So what's stopping Washington from setting up the Washington State Food and Drug Administration and doing it anyway? Just because there isn't a mechanism right now doesn't mean that can't change and there's no constitutional authority over drug approval given to the federal government.

The federal government has authority over the subject matter on a number of levels, at a minimum on the interstate nature of everything from the drug supply chain to the disease itself. Generally, federal authority and regulation in these activities "precludes" and prevents contradictory state activity. This is referred to as "field occupation"; the feds are regulating this, the states don't get to overrule the feds. Washington could theoretically, maybe, depending on the other authorities involved, set up regulations over entirely intrastate activity by people who do not leave the state or effect people who leave the state, being treated by people who do not compete with people who leave the state, using treatments produced entirely within the state.

California did attempt this with Prop 65 and has attempted to do it with some food regulations, to very little success, because hey presto, people sue them in federal court. Their limited success has been largely dependent on the size of their market meaning that companies just comply and apply specific standards elsewhere, and because those standards do not conflict with federal regulations.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 23:28

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

mod sassinator posted:

I don't see how this is any different from marijuana. Washington state expanded its liquor board to control and setup all the rules for legal weed sales in the state. It is entirely illegal at the federal level to sell, consume, etc. marijuana yet Washington state has been doing it for almost 10 years now. Funding hasn't been cut, people haven't sued the state into oblivion. Washington has put experts in place to review and approve goods which are consumed by people for their pharmacological effects.

A vaccine is not any different and Washington's state department of health could be expanded to approve the drug use--for all other drugs they could choose to defer to the FDA's testing and authorization, this isn't an either/or thing where they have to take on some ridiculous burden for every drug. They just say, "Bing, bong we approve booster, we purchased it from Pfizer in a completely private transaction between a private business and a state, the feds have no business here. Washingtonians, we are here for your health and will plug the hole the federal government is leaving that puts you at severe risk right now."

I fail to see how this is any different from people crying about "What you can't just print money and give it to people!??" with lockdown last year, and then *brrrrr* goes the money printer... except this time it's much needed life-saving boosters.

Discendo Vox posted:

Marijuana enforcement is an entirely different form of authority tied to the 10th amendment's police power.

You need to step back and evaluate why you're making nullification arguments.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 23:42

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Just because you have decided you know better than the FDA doesn't mean that the individual states get to nullify federal law. The relevant authorities have already been explained to you multiple times.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 23:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

mod sassinator posted:

Where did I say I know better?

I am saying what is stopping a state from saying it knows better and wants to save its citizens itself? This seems like a clear cut thing a state could do itself if the federal government continues to fail to keep its citizens safe.

Texas and Florida are saying they know better than the CDC and will not require or allow vaccine mandates for certain things. This is no different at all.

State attempts to deny or block vaccine mandates will be subject to court proceedings that, to the degree that they hinge on nullifying federal authority, will be subject to the same analysis I just described.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2021 23:55

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

We have described the relevant legal authorities at length. The principles are not different or special in the case of vaccination. Texas, Montana and Florida do not have the ability to nullify federal laws or regulations. It is unlikely that legal proceedings have begun in any of these states because the OSHA rule hasn't been even promulgated yet.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2021 01:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Thoguh posted:

I am not 'just asking questions'. People are making very real claims about state level actions that I think are not backed up by reality so, because this is a thread about discussion, rather than just saying they are making things up I am asking them if they have sources to back up the things they are claiming.

Fritz the Horse posted:

and Texas and Florida are going to get dragged to court for not complying with vaccine mandates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis

This conversation feels like it's drawn from Trump's DO SOMETHING tweet genre. You are of course entitled to be upset that federal and state government bodies are not doing what you think is right, but there is literally not a constitutional mechanism for what you're proposing. Nullification was decided two hundred years ago and Something Awful forums posters aren't going to stumble on One Weird Trick for states to nullify federal law in 2021.

Discendo Vox posted:

State attempts to deny or block vaccine mandates will be subject to court proceedings that, to the degree that they hinge on nullifying federal authority, will be subject to the same analysis I just described.

Discendo Vox posted:

We have described the relevant legal authorities at length. The principles are not different or special in the case of vaccination. Texas, Montana and Florida do not have the ability to nullify federal laws or regulations. It is unlikely that legal proceedings have begun in any of these states because the OSHA rule hasn't been even promulgated yet.

Discendo Vox posted:

States do not even have a mechanism for medication approval. States cannot nullify federal authority. We fought a war over this. Marijuana enforcement is an entirely different form of authority tied to the 10th amendment's police power. State ability to ignore other federal authorities is tied to rejecting associated federal programs and funding.

Discendo Vox posted:

Phigs, you straight up do not know anything about the "technocratic bullshit" you are attacking. Just for one example, the FDA lost the ability to directly regulate prescription decisions due to a suit from WLF a long time ago (iirc the first case in the most recent run was 1997), and their ability to regulate related marketing activity has been under continuous attack ever since. It's the basis of the currently widespread practice of offlabeling and probably has an 8-digit deathtoll.

You are trying to make us explain every part of the concept of federal supremacy and administrative law from first principles, and ignoring every explanation provided.

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

I think it is reasonable to assume that, since the FDA approved the pfizer vaccine for off label use, states have the ability to support booster shots provide a person received a doctors approval. Otherwise the FDA would be arguing against itself.

The FDA does not "approve for off label use". Offlabel use is a deregulatory gap introduced into FDA authority over physician practices. In function physician practices are restricted by state or system practice guidelines and civil liability.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Sep 19, 2021

# ¿ Sep 19, 2021 04:52

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Thoguh posted:

I read the entirety of your post and I do not feel like anything you linked was a material response to my question about how state level actors are held accountable for anything.

Yes, you have established that nothing will satisfy you because you are here to poo poo up the thread.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2021 05:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Feigl-Ding is straight up someone we discussed banning as a source in previous iterations of the thread because of their tendency for fearmongering and self-promotional tweets.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2021 07:08

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

Counter argue the data. Just bashing an epidemiologist because you are not fond of his Twitter posting style is rather childish.

Your claim using that bad source of "data" (a twitter account that tells you what you want, based on MSPaint drawings on screenshots of badly attributed powerpoint slides, that was rejected as a source months ago) still relies on pretending the actual FDA panel did not consist of actual qualified subject experts.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2021 07:13

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The root sourcing of this is Ebright, who is the same person with the medium rant that I dissected in the "how conspiracy theories operate" effortpost I linked earlier. I don't have time to dig in now, but it's probably going to be conflating different research programs and/or different definitions of gain of function.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Sep 22, 2021

# ¿ Sep 22, 2021 19:05

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Professor Beetus posted:

To be fair, that's a fuckton of people who mostly don't have any choice but to put themselves in harm's way, and would have described me if I was still employed, instead of getting high and playing Sea of Thieves. Definitely seems like a good time to look into it if you are in that job category, depending on your circumstances.

Fairly significant news from an extremely vanilla source.

Here's the direct, full FDA announcement linked in the above article.

FDA Authorizes Booster Dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for Certain Populations

quote:

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for use of a single booster dose, to be administered at least six months after completion of the primary series in:

individuals 65 years of age and older;

individuals 18 through 64 years of age at high risk of severe COVID-19; and

individuals 18 through 64 years of age whose frequent institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 puts them at high risk of serious complications of COVID-19 including severe COVID-19.

Today�s authorization applies only to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.

�Today�s action demonstrates that science and the currently available data continue to guide the FDA�s decision-making for COVID-19 vaccines during this pandemic. After considering the totality of the available scientific evidence and the deliberations of our advisory committee of independent, external experts, the FDA amended the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for a booster dose in certain populations such as health care workers, teachers and day care staff, grocery workers and those in homeless shelters or prisons, among others,� said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, M.D. �This pandemic is dynamic and evolving, with new data about vaccine safety and effectiveness becoming available every day. As we learn more about the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, including the use of a booster dose, we will continue to evaluate the rapidly changing science and keep the public informed.�

The Process for Assessing the Available Data

Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA), was approved by the FDA on Aug. 23, for the prevention of COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 in individuals 16 years of age and older. On Aug. 25, 2021, the FDA received a supplement from Pfizer Inc. to their biologics license application for Comirnaty seeking approval of a single booster dose to be administered approximately six months after completion of the primary vaccination series for individuals 16 years of age and older.

As part of the FDA�s commitment to transparency, the agency convened a public meeting of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Sept. 17 to solicit input from independent scientific and public health experts on the data submitted in the application. During the meeting, the vaccine manufacturer presented information and data in support of its application. The FDA also presented its analysis of clinical trial data submitted by the vaccine manufacturer. Additionally, the public was also given an opportunity to provide comment; and FDA invited international and U.S. agencies and external groups, including representatives from the Israeli Ministry of Health, the University of Bristol, U.K. and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to present recent data on the use of vaccine boosters, epidemiology of COVID-19, and real-world evidence on vaccine effectiveness.

The FDA considered the data that the vaccine manufacturer submitted, information presented at the VRBPAC meeting, and the committee�s discussion, and has determined that based on the totality of the available scientific evidence, a booster dose of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19 and that the known and potential benefits of a booster dose outweigh the known and potential risks in the populations that the FDA is authorizing for use. The booster dose is authorized for administration to these individuals at least six months following completion of their primary series and may be given at any point after that time.

It�s important to note that the FDA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is the same formulation as the FDA-approved Comirnaty and the vaccines may be used interchangeably.

�We�re grateful for the advice of the doctors, scientists, and leading vaccine experts on our advisory committee and the important role they have played in ensuring transparent discussions about COVID-19 vaccines. We appreciate the robust discussion, including the vote regarding individuals over 65 years of age and individuals at high risk for severe disease, as well as the committee�s views regarding the use of a booster dose for those with institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2,� said Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., director of FDA�s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. �The FDA considered the committee�s input and conducted its own thorough review of the submitted data to reach today�s decision. We will continue to analyze data submitted to the FDA pertaining to the use of booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines and we will make further decisions as appropriate based on the data.�

Data Supporting Authorization for Emergency Use

To support the authorization for emergency use of a single booster dose, the FDA analyzed safety and immune response data from a subset of participants from the original clinical trial of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. In addition, consideration was given to real-world data on the vaccine�s efficacy over a sustained period of time provided by both U.S. and international sources, including the CDC, the UK and Israel. The immune responses of approximately 200 participants 18 through 55 years of age who received a single booster dose approximately six months after their second dose were assessed. The antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 virus one month after a booster dose of the vaccine compared to the response one month after the two-dose primary series in the same individuals demonstrated a booster response.

Additional analysis conducted by the manufacturer, as requested by the FDA, compared the rates of COVID-19 accrued during the current Delta variant surge among original clinical trial participants who completed the primary two-dose vaccination series early in the clinical trial to those who completed a two-dose series later in the study. The analysis submitted by the company showed that during the study period of July and August 2021, the incidence of COVID-19 was higher among the participants who completed their primary vaccine series earlier, compared to participants who completed it later. The FDA determined that the rate of breakthrough COVID-19 reported during this time period translates to a modest decrease in the efficacy of the vaccine among those vaccinated earlier.

Safety was evaluated in 306 participants 18 through 55 years of age and 12 participants 65 years of age and older who were followed for an average of over two months. The most commonly reported side effects by the clinical trial participants who received the booster dose of the vaccine were pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, as well as fatigue, headache, muscle or joint pain and chills. Of note, swollen lymph nodes in the underarm were observed more frequently following the booster dose than after the primary two-dose series.

Since Dec. 11, 2020, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has been available under EUA for individuals 16 years of age and older. The authorization was expanded on May 10, 2021 to include those 12 through 15 years of age, and again on Aug. 12, 2021 to include the use of a third dose of a three-dose primary series in certain immunocompromised individuals 12 years of age and older. EUAs can be used by the FDA during public health emergencies to provide access to medical products that may be effective in preventing, diagnosing, or treating a disease, provided that the FDA determines that the known and potential benefits of a product, when used to prevent, diagnose, or treat the disease, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.

The amendment to the EUA to include a single booster dose was granted to Pfizer Inc.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2021 07:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Fallom posted:

So we went from "not even sure it helps people under 65" to "18 year olds should get one if they work in public"?

We didn�t go anywhere; it�s the same as recommended by the expert committee.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2021 14:32

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Epic High Five posted:

It seems to be working out well enough so far, it's been an interesting experiment considering how much has changed over how much time since the old thread

Professor Beetus posted:

IK Warning: If you aren't posting sources and arguing with other folks who are, don't expect them to do your work for you. You want to put on adult pants and argue, better be prepared to back it up. This is not the moral superiority station, no one gives a poo poo that you think something should be done, we all do.

If there is someone who you absolutely cannot help but start attacking for dumb bullshit then put them on ignore and save us all some trouble. My general thread rule of treat each other like human beings is pretty loving easy to follow and yet some of you still can't seem to follow that.

Rosalind posted:

I have to say that this thread is a bit exhausting. It feels like any rational discourse is drowned out by people with extreme views. I totally get that this is an emotionally charged and scary topic, but it's tough to engage with this thread from a scientific background.

I'm going to step back again. If anyone has any specific and earnest epi questions, please feel free to PM me.

I would like to understand your criteria for "working out well enough".

# ¿ Sep 23, 2021 18:16

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Epic High Five posted:

The formerly threadbanned posters who have returned haven't really been posting above the general background level of agitation and abrasion, and have been heeding calls to reign it in when they're put out. Anybody who steps out of line enough for cat jail when something irl gets things heated up is dealt with regardless of previous thread status. Such is the nature of an amnesty, and it has been in the OP thread guidelines since day 1.

1. The "general background level of agitation and abrasion" has been established since the OP of the thread and included open calls to mislead physicians and was sufficient to drive off an epidemiologist. That this is considered "working out well enough" is a problem for the long term health of the thread, as it means users who know the subject or provide substantive sources are placed at a disadvantage to "agitation and abrasion".

2. What you have described is already a deviation from the original OP, which excluded OOCC and stated that the threadbans were still in effect. The OP language on this has also been changed, and what you describe in the post above is also different from the OP, as it describes applying probations instead of not enforcing threadbans.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2021 19:19

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

virtualboyCOLOR posted:

Pretty good article from WaPo about unvaccinated folks who actually want the vaccine:

I don�t recall much support from the Biden administration on this front. I recall some discussion about using private companies like Uber and Lyft, but nothing about using something like the national guard to help put shots in arms or bring directly shots to local communities / businesses.

The EO did have, if I recall, an option to take time off of work and sick days, but that is only a start.

Here is the actual HHS report, cited in the article. The "willing but unvaccinated" were classified to include those who were "unsure" about the vaccine and the stated responses do not include physical access. The rest of the article is anecdotes frequently not reflecting ongoing effort.

The Biden administration has already put billions of dollars into expanding access, including both physical and persuasive elements. Here's a press release on one tranche of such funding from May.

The Executive Order in question only applies to federal employees, because it's where the administration can rapidly perform such actions without going through the rulemaking process. The leave provision you are thinking of was part of the American Rescue Plan Act, and took the form of a tax credit applicable to some companies to cover paid time off. The President does not have the authority to do things like that without an act of congress.

From the materials I prepared for the media lit thread:

quote:

�Why am I not hearing about x?!�
Politicians do not actually control the media- and media attention is an incredibly fickle constraint. There is a constant churn of attempts to get and maintain media attention, and the media ecosystem is more fragmented than ever. The vast majority of press announcements, even from the white house, do not get billing even in conventional press. Mediated, self-reinforced selection newsfeeds like twitter give an even more limited picture. When you blame someone for �not talking about� something, bear in mind that they may actually be talking about that thing- you�re just not hearing about it because your sources of information aren�t providing it to you. If you find yourself asking this question, check to see if the politician or- well, let�s be real, it�s usually the democrats that get blamed for this- the democrats are actually talking about it, and it�s just not getting covered. And understand that �well they should talk about it more� usually means they get to do, or even just talk about, other things less�and you�re not the only person with the only priorities that they need to reach. Good governance does not attract attention like a fat man riding an escalator does. Find better, more direct sources that will tell you more about what is going on. Stop watching the fat man on the escalator.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2021 19:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I explicitly cited the May press release as an example.The President cannot unilaterally send people checks; it requires an act of congress. The administration has already announced a vaccination mandate passing through OSHA, which has to go through notice and comment rulemaking. The scope of exceptions remains to be seen, but will in part depend on calculations by the administration about whether they will cause a court challenge that could threaten or at least stay the entire mandate. At a minimum, significant restrictions on religious exemptions to a vaccine mandate are unlikely to be found constitutional.

You know all of this.

It is taxing to be required to explain the entire administrative legal apparatus, much of the public health apparatus, to read improperly presented articles and quote and directly link the underlying research, in the face of a series of content-free attacks based on deliberate ignorance.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2021 19:53

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

mod sassinator posted:

It's tiring to be two years into the worst pandemic in our modern history, one that has now killed more Americans than the last greatest pandemic, and still have people claiming we've done the best we possibly could and the administration is beyond criticism.

This is in no way an accurate reflection of my statements.

Shifty Pony posted:

The OSHA rules will at least initially bypass the notice and rulemaking requirements because they are going to be issued under OSHA's emergency rulemaking authority.

But they will almost certainly be halted by that one nutso conservative judge in Texas and the appeals will drag on into the normal rulemaking time to make the emergency rule permanent so I guess that distinction doesn't matter.

Yeah, that's my thinking - plus there's of course a compliance period. Advance and immediate compliance will occur regardless, so there's still advantage to using the ETS approach.

# ¿ Sep 23, 2021 20:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

FDA committee recommendations generally hold where there's tension between the two (since they handle approvals and it's their rec process); I'd need to look at current CDC evaluation criteria and the basis for the committee to see if there are any irregularities. CDC recs aren't usually a thing in drug approvals and I don't know the vaxx process well enough to speak to it on that.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Sep 23, 2021

# ¿ Sep 23, 2021 23:53

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

This is exactly the opposite of correct. Cynical, pessimistic takes on Covid are being distributed into a communication medium. They effect others, and they spread- that's why it's a communication medium. They do not deserve protection from whether or not they can be reconciled with reality. Imagine saying this about similarly irrational expressions of, for example, vaccine skepticism. The forum does not have an obligation to accommodate and shape itself to the lowest common denominator of beliefs.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2021 00:29

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 23, 2024 10:12

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I should not have to ask you at this point to give us the source you are using to claim case statistics- nor the idea that the administration is propagating that vaccines are "a Covid force field and good enough reason to throw all precaution to the wind because Covid is now �endemic.�"

# ¿ Sep 24, 2021 03:15

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > COVID-19: People on the internet are judging me for going outside. It used to be the reverse.

«‹›7 »