In the US, there are about 2 billion automobile trips per year. Of those, about 30 thousand result in accidents that, without seatbelts, would result in death. Seatbelts reduce that number to about 15 thousand. So, we have laws that require people to wear seatbelts even though their effectiveness in preventing death is only about 50% and has no effect in 99.9999935% of trips (the ones where there is no accident), and where the benefit of seatbelts only accrues directly to the people who wear them. As causes of death go, automobile accidents are pretty low on the list, only about 1% of deaths.
This past year, Covid-19 has accounted for 12% of deaths (most of those in the last couple of months). The benefits of a vaccine accrue not only to the person who receives it but to the people who do not suffer the effects of the virus because they weren't infected.
I'm 67 years old. In those years, I've known three people who died in an automobile accident. In the past few months, more than that number of people I know have died of Covid-19. To me, arguments about whether to get vaccinated against Covid-19 sound like arguments about whether to wear a seatbelt.
The high innuendo/information ratio of that article angers me, as does the low context/fear-mongering ratio.
The article begins by laying the groundwork for why we should distrust drug companies (and "profiteers" --- whoever that's supposed to be).
It goes on to "explain" what the results of the drug trials mean, but the explanation only continues to sow the seeds of doubt. The results seem pretty unambiguous to me: the number of infections in subjects who received the vaccine was significantly lower than in the control/placebo group.
The individuals who weren't exposed to the virus enough to be infected (in either the control group or the test group) aren't statistically relevant --- they're only part of the test because, as the author points out, it would be immoral to intentionally expose the subjects to the virus.
Part of the "sowing seeds of doubt" (and confusion) is to say "These are very small numbers." Sure, when a virus is only killing 3,500 people a day in a population of 350 million (I'm talking about the United States), the numbers are indeed very small: only 0.001% of the population is dying each day --- only slightly more than the number who are dying of heart disease (until now the main killer). We've had 20 million cases so far (less than 6% of the population), and "only" 340,000 people have died --- about one in a hundred (and still short of the number that died in the second world war). If the virus ends up infecting half the population (which is what we'd expect to happen sooner or later without a vaccine), we'd expect that number to rise to 2 or 3 million. The question is: what effect would inoculation with the vaccine have on this? If the vaccine prevents 95% of those deaths, we're talking about saving over a million lives. Does the author suggest that we not vaccinate people?
The author says he's not trying to "imply dishonesty on the part of the drug companies," but in the next breath says "Do you trust any of these drug manufacturers...enough that you would take whatever risk is associate with their products ...?" and begins his answer with "I know good doctors who won't..."
The author tells the reader to make the decision (about whether to get vaccinated) "wisely," but then goes on to characterize it as "taking a relatively untested product to reduce your Covid risk by maybe 2%." What is the risk to the population if people who would otherwise have gotten vaccinated read an article like this one, decide "it's not worth the risk," and get infected?
Publishing this article is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
In the US, there are about 2 billion automobile trips per year. Of those, about 30 thousand result in accidents that, without seatbelts, would result in death. Seatbelts reduce that number to about 15 thousand. So, we have laws that require people to wear seatbelts even though their effectiveness in preventing death is only about 50% and has no effect in 99.9999935% of trips (the ones where there is no accident), and where the benefit of seatbelts only accrues directly to the people who wear them. As causes of death go, automobile accidents are pretty low on the list, only about 1% of deaths.
This past year, Covid-19 has accounted for 12% of deaths (most of those in the last couple of months). The benefits of a vaccine accrue not only to the person who receives it but to the people who do not suffer the effects of the virus because they weren't infected.
I'm 67 years old. In those years, I've known three people who died in an automobile accident. In the past few months, more than that number of people I know have died of Covid-19. To me, arguments about whether to get vaccinated against Covid-19 sound like arguments about whether to wear a seatbelt.
The high innuendo/information ratio of that article angers me, as does the low context/fear-mongering ratio.
The article begins by laying the groundwork for why we should distrust drug companies (and "profiteers" --- whoever that's supposed to be).
It goes on to "explain" what the results of the drug trials mean, but the explanation only continues to sow the seeds of doubt. The results seem pretty unambiguous to me: the number of infections in subjects who received the vaccine was significantly lower than in the control/placebo group.
The individuals who weren't exposed to the virus enough to be infected (in either the control group or the test group) aren't statistically relevant --- they're only part of the test because, as the author points out, it would be immoral to intentionally expose the subjects to the virus.
Part of the "sowing seeds of doubt" (and confusion) is to say "These are very small numbers." Sure, when a virus is only killing 3,500 people a day in a population of 350 million (I'm talking about the United States), the numbers are indeed very small: only 0.001% of the population is dying each day --- only slightly more than the number who are dying of heart disease (until now the main killer). We've had 20 million cases so far (less than 6% of the population), and "only" 340,000 people have died --- about one in a hundred (and still short of the number that died in the second world war). If the virus ends up infecting half the population (which is what we'd expect to happen sooner or later without a vaccine), we'd expect that number to rise to 2 or 3 million. The question is: what effect would inoculation with the vaccine have on this? If the vaccine prevents 95% of those deaths, we're talking about saving over a million lives. Does the author suggest that we not vaccinate people?
The author says he's not trying to "imply dishonesty on the part of the drug companies," but in the next breath says "Do you trust any of these drug manufacturers...enough that you would take whatever risk is associate with their products ...?" and begins his answer with "I know good doctors who won't..."
The author tells the reader to make the decision (about whether to get vaccinated) "wisely," but then goes on to characterize it as "taking a relatively untested product to reduce your Covid risk by maybe 2%." What is the risk to the population if people who would otherwise have gotten vaccinated read an article like this one, decide "it's not worth the risk," and get infected?
Publishing this article is, in my opinion, irresponsible.
Well said. He's been taking lessons from Tucker Carlson