Hacker News Reader

Comment by hannob | Hacker News Reader

I honestly have a hard time following that line of reasoning.

It's always like: "These vaccines are dangerous, what about sideeffects? You're hiding the sideeffects!"

Then countries and health authorities show that they're very sensitive when sideeffects show up and do a careful investigation. Now being extra careful is criticized as undermining trust in vaccines? (I guess if they had decided to not pause that would've also caused claims that this undermines trust in vaccines, as they're ignoring sideeffects.)

I'm not even saying pausing was the right decision. It was a tough call and I wouldn't want to be in a position to make that call.

But I guess there's one undeniable fact: The Anti-Vax crowd will use whatever happens to construct new bullshit arguments. There's no way to prevent that, and I think the best thing to do about it is to ignore those people as much as possible.

View on HN

The anti-vax crowd is complete nonsense, but the feeling I got from Italy wasn't so much "see! vaccines are dangerous! I am not getting a jab!, but rather "it looks like AstraZeneca may not be entirely safe, I demand a Moderna or Pfizer jab!".

Due to extremely skewed media coverage of the recent events, it may also be almost justifiable as a general reaction of population. If people are told that a vaccine has a rare but lethal side effect, and they are not in at-risk category, and there are two other vaccines that seem safer, it is almost reasonable to wait the other one. The main issue has been communication by media which made the investigation into side-effect seem much more severe than what it really was, undermining people trust in AZ. I think newspapers made an horrible job at it.

I would definitely still get the AZ vaccine, but I kind of understand where people are coming from, given the message given by media and their number-illiteracy that does not allow them to understand probability and the scale of numbers.

The minute-by-minute story of vaccines emerging over the past year has turned everyone into an armchair immunologist. Most people wouldn't normally have a clue who's making a vaccine they need for travel etc, let alone how they compare, but now people act like they're picking from a wine menu.

The reality is we're damn well lucky to have any vaccine at all, and only a year after the pandemic kicked off.

It's a good thing if people try to get informed. The pandemic and its handling by the authorities has unfortunately shown that "the authorities" don't always make the right choices and don't always provide the right data.

If the vaccines are safe, it should be easy for the authorities to provide data that shows they are safe.

Of course trusting the authorities is a valid life choice, to each their own.

> If the vaccines are safe, it should be easy for the authorities to provide data that shows they are safe.

A portion of that crowd refuse to acknowledge their safety without more data about their possible long term side-effects, which inevitably takes time that we don't really have.

Then that portion of the crowd have to make their own decisions. As I said, uncertainty should also be communicated. How exactly do the authorities handle the issue of long term side effects? Presumably they base their decision on some kind of reasoning?

> It's a good thing if people try to get informed.

Do they get informed though? It seems they mostly get articles written by journalists who don't really understand the issue either, sprinkled with a few quotes from professionals that often get taken out of context.

I don't think we're turning the population into experts. They're not able to judge the effectiveness, risk and side-effects of any measure. I'm not sure "a little bit of knowledge, some fear and a lot of opinion" is a benefit.

It is the responsibility of the authorities to provide appropriate information. If they fail to do that - maybe something is wrong with the authorities. I don't think they can simply blame "journalists". In my European country, for example, there is even a "public TV" system that gets funding of several billion dollars every year. If they can not find some good journalists for that money, what can they even be trusted with?

I mean they DO have the information, right? We assume they are making "informed" decisions, so the information should be available (including uncertainty, which would also be information - the degree of uncertainty, that is).

> It is the responsibility of the authorities to provide appropriate information.

What good is information without knowledge? What can a random citizen do with a medical study but shrug and say "I guess?"

> If they can not find some good journalists for that money, what can they even be trusted with?

Journalists have increasingly transitioned from understanding themselves as a public watchdog to explaining government policies.

But even if they hadn't, journalists are fundamentally "citizens with typewriters", they are generally not experts on the topics they cover, and I'm sure you've noticed that on topics you know a lot about. Even if you agree with their general description, they'll get a lot of details wrong, and somebody who doesn't know the topic at all won't gain a lot by reading an article written by someone who also doesn't really know the topic. It's like playing Chinese Whispers, where you whisper something into another player's ear, they repeat it to the next person and so on until something totally different makes it back to you.

I sure hope they have some information, but I don't think that politicians are making informed decisions. I believe, they delegate the decision to (who they believe to be the best) experts. It's unreasonable to expect career politicians to e.g. understand how exactly viral infections are spreading, how that will affect some part of the population during some specific seasonal weather that we're expecting with such and such probability etc. What they can do is ask their favorite topic expert who hopefully understands all that and tells them to push this button or that one.

But beyond giving that expert room in a news paper to say what they told the politician, what can be done? Surely they can't just compress 6 years of intense studying of the topic at hand into an article and expect citizens to be "up to speed" and able to make informed decisions?

"What good is information without knowledge? What can a random citizen do with a medical study but shrug and say "I guess?"

A lot of people have knowledge, they know maths, they may be doctors, they may know doctors. And they can learn the same way doctors or experts learn. What exactly enables experts to understand a thing, and not "random people"?`

Even if you are not a doctor, you can check a study to see if basic aspects check out. For example I saw a study promoting mask use, but it was based on an experiment with hamsters. So personally I would say that is interesting, but not quite enough to force billions of people to wear masks.

You can check if they do randomized trials and so on. You don't need to be an expert to do that. Or you can check who wrote the study (like "Wuhan lab for genetic experiments on viral diseases" that finds it certainly, under no circumstances, originated in a lab), lots of things you can do without being an expert.

Do you trust experts? There is actually research that shows you shouldn't, in general (not just for Covid).

> What exactly enables experts to understand a thing, and not "random people"?

Mastery of the domain. Yes, any random person (of sufficient intellect) can become an expert in any topic for all intents and purposes. But it takes a lot of time and effort that they'll have to devote to it. I don't think it's reasonably to expect that everyone will be an expert in everything, and it definitely isn't efficient.

With lots of things, you can do general plausibility checks, but you'll miss essentially all of the non-trivial issues if you're not experienced with the methodologies and tools. It's like asking somebody with no programming experience to judge the merits of some architectural choice. They won't be able to make an informed decision and you can't present a complete picture of the intricacies and implications in a 30 minute talk.

From my experience, your average general physician can't tell you a lot about viral infections beyond what you can learn in 30 minutes on Wikipedia. And that's miles away from being able to actually judge vaccines, or the usefulness of masks. What they typically do is rely on experts that write guidelines and recommendations.

Many people spent much, much more than 30 minutes thinking about Covid by now. Many have been in lockdown for over a year now. Every newspaper article they see, every TV show they see, every discussion people have is about Covid.

Even the experts did not have more than a year to thik about Covid yet.

Also people don't have to understand everything. I don't understand enough about mRNA to give you a medical explanation of the vaccine, but I can perhaps understand statistics of the outcomes of the vaccination.

For vaccines and masks, they should provide statistics that show they are effective. If they don't have them, they should launch studies to provide the data.

And even having independent experts be able to validate the claims by the authorities would be valuable.

I'm glad we got vaccines out so quickly, but I can see why some people ask about their safety as it never happened so quickly in the past and mRNA at such a large scale is unheard of.

Unfortunately, the anti-vax crowd will use any means necessary to discredit vaccines, and scepticism is part of their toolkit.

It's not just skeptism: I didn't like the ,,1 and half dose'' and other bullshit that AstraZeneca did in their Phase 3 to not have proper testing on old people. There is a reason why the data was not good enough for the FDA to approve it, it seemed like the AstraZeneca Phase 3 testing was rushed and on a level that would be unacceptable if there wasn't a pandemic.

Even in their announcements AstraZeneca seems like trying to hide the problems instead of giving a balanced view of the (probably small) risks.

> it seemed like the AstraZeneca Phase 3 testing was rushed and on a level that would be unacceptable if there wasn't a pandemic

I didn't like the lack of data on the older populations, either, and totally get why various regulators decided they wanted more such before going forward with it (given that the AZ one is based on known vaccine tech I'd have trusted it anyway, but that's a personal choice).

However the lack of data in the older population was not due to rushing (though it was rushed, obviously). They started pretty early on before much was known about the medical aspects of Covid-19 and took the deliberate decision not to risk people with age-reduced immune systems at the start.

Yes, that wasn't helpful, but you could also argue it was pretty good ethically and morally so it's hard really to fault them for it.

That's totally fine, but they could have finished the Phase-3 testing for old people, or at least offer alternative vaccines if the measured immune reaction is too small.

Right now my parents are opting waiting 1-2 months more for the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines, because after they decide on a vaccine, even if the antigen count in their blood is small, it doesn't give them the right for another vaccine (in UAE the government provides a 3rd dose of Sinopharm for people with small immune response).

The FDA requires their own trials, there was no after the fact decision to not use the other data, they just never considered it.

It's likely they'll issue an EUA for the AstraZeneca vaccine based on the US trial results in a couple weeks here.

Doctors in the EU are obliged to educate the patient on the risks and benefits of vaccines. It's not unheard of that they don't, but it is our right as patients to know the basic information about any vaccine we are being administered. Sometimes there are multiple options which can be evaluated.

Don't preach about how we should accept anything that's thrown our way. Many of us are in a tough situation so we'll accept the crappy AZ, but if such a vaccine were released on the market and had to compete with the likes of Pfizer nobody would pick it.

This is horrible. There is no difference between the AZ vaccine and Pfizer. One is not "crappy" - you're literally posting this on a thread that says it's safe and effective in multiple studies.

The EU is becoming a disaster zone of vaccine propaganda. I would never have imagined that national governments would become the primary source of anti-vax nonsense. Make no mistake about it - European politicians have been attacking the AZ vaccine because it originates from the UK and they are ideologically blinded by hatred of Brexit. They've been systematically lying about this particular vaccine and no other one right from the start.

They claimed it didn't work: false, based on a "misreading" of a German report. They claimed the UK had blocked export of it: false. They claimed AZ was in contract violation: false. They claimed it was dangerous: false.

Every time one lie is dispelled, another immediately emerges to take its place. And it's coming from people like Merkel and Macron. Unreal.

> European politicians have been attacking the AZ vaccine because it originates from the UK and they are ideologically blinded by hatred of Brexit.

There was a good piece in the Irish Times this weekend if you fancy a less UK-centric view on this. The view you've expressed above seems to be the only one I read among the British press/commentariat. Perhaps it is the UK that is blinded?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/brexit-blinds-britain-to-...

"The Oxford/AstraZeneca team managed an extraordinary feat – producing a safe and effective vaccine against a novel coronavirus within a few months. Yet time and again, AstraZeneca has undermined its own efforts with communication blunders, a lack of transparency and a consistent record of overestimating its own capacity to deliver."

Well, we know what the EU press are claiming, but that quoted paragraph isn't true is it? How has AZ undermined its own efforts? Where are the communication problems or lack of transparency? They have been doing pretty clear press releases where they address whatever the latest nonsense de jour is. For example, their response to the claims the vaccine was dangerous was very clear and unambiguous. The confusion here has been generated exclusively by one side.

As for the contract, the Commission released that contract specifically redacted to try and imply it said things it didn't, but they redacted it wrongly. Note that the EU committed itself to secrecy about their agreements as part of negotiating a lower price than other countries are paying. Then a Belgian minister violated that agreement too by publishing the prices. So it's hard to criticise AZ for lack of transparency when no company publishes customer contracts proactively and the EU itself has tried to hide the details of its own agreement as part of misleading the public. We know that the Commission was lying about things partly because they keep accidentally releasing information they intended to be kept secret.

The fact is, the EU has been taking measures and making statements here that are UK specific. When it declared it would require vaccine export licenses it exempted every neighbouring state, except the UK. When it suspended the Northern Ireland protocol over vaccines, it was a UK specific move. Now they are threatening to seize factories and block exports of already paid for vaccines, to the UK. If there's some explanation for this that isn't political it's not obvious what it is, because AZ has done nothing wrong, and nor has the UK.

> The view you've expressed above seems to be the only one I read among the British press/commentariat.

I'm from Germany, and that has been pretty much my impression as well. Merkel gave vaccine orders as a PR gift to von der Leyen/EU, they messed up badly. While that came out piece by piece, surprise surprise, in came the "mistakes".

I'm sure it's not a large conspiracy, at some point there's enough FUD spread everywhere that everyone's threshold for "pause the campaign" is low enough, "just to be safe", but some parts of it very much did look like revenge.

Your whole argument is undermined by the massive orders the EU put for this vaccine and how it was and is fighting to get those orders delivered in spite of all the screw-ups by AZ. Seriously, how do you come up with these conspiracy theories about Brexit hatred and then write with a straight face about "propaganda"?

What screwups by AZ? There haven't been any, they've been doing the same things as other pharma firms, who have all always said that manufacturing is unpredictable and they'll try to make it all as quickly as possible but can't offer hard guarantees. The idea they're incompetent is more media propaganda - exactly the kind of thing that's causing people to stop taking it in EU states. Probably the Commission should try and fix the large stockpiles going unused due to this type of propaganda before they worry about export bans.

As for Brexit, see my other comment. A lot of the actions the EU has taken have been entirely UK specific. For instance the requirement for export licenses was waived for every non-EU state neighbouring the EU, except the UK.

The meme of "not enough people want to take AZ" needs to die. It's not backed by any reality on the ground, if you have the stuff its not difficult to find people to take it.

Where did you get that idea? This is not a meme, it's repeats of widely available data and news reports. As of the 17th March nearly half of all delivered vaccines had not been used:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/millions-oxford-astrazeneca-unused...

Germany alone was sitting on over 1 million. The article has a graph showing the backlog in each country. I am very skeptical they have managed to clear this in only 6 days given that around half the European population now incorrectly believes this vaccine is dangerous or useless.

That there aren't enough people that want the vaccine is a meme. There's lots and lots of people waiting for a chance to get it. Number of willing people is not a limiting factor, and won't be for a long time. And it's effing insulting to hear people parrot "Oh Germans don't want to be vaccinated" when at the same time nearly everyone around you is struggling to get an appointment for elderly/vulnerable relatives and would jump at a chance to get it themselves but will have to wait months to even be considered.

(and re numbers, since the 17th Germany has administered 1.2 million vaccinations, "unused" vaccinations can be reserved second doses, ... I certainly won't claim that this is all running perfectly, but any suggestion that more vaccine available wouldn't be used just doesn't make any sense)

OK, so I get that the data doesn't seem to match your local perception. That's useful to know, thanks.

But the suggestion that more available!=more use does make logical sense given the information available. Lots of vaccines have been stockpiled and more than ~50% of people in Germany/France are telling pollsters that they think the AZ vaccine is dangerous. The link between those two facts is obvious, one would automatically lead to the other. If those stockpiles are reserved for second doses then (a) Germany should adopt the same dosing strategy as the UK, which has by now been proven to work well and (b) they should just say that because it would change the politics of the situation considerably. Currently British politicians are saying outright that it makes no sense for the EU to threaten to block exports when they aren't using what they've got. If that's a misunderstanding it's easy to fix, but I haven't seen any such suggestion before and your phrasing (can be) suggests that this is speculation on your part, not a known fact.

No, one fact does not lead automatically to the other, since we are far from covering half the population. For a good chunk of people answering these polls the question is entirely academic for now, because nobody is offering the vaccine to them (which I assume skews the results, but even we assume it doesn't). If there were a severe lack of people willing to get vaccinated, people wouldn't have difficulties getting appointments. And that part of the population is also running out of patience, and has had it with excuses why we get less than promised. Don't underestimate that other large chunk of society. This is generally a thing: the people that stuck to all the rules + more and (perceive it as) getting nothing for it, while politics/media/... keeps pandering to those calling for less restrictions or even going total denial, are also very much not happy.

It's also clearly stated publicly that at least a million doses are currently being "stockpiled" to get the rollout through local doctors running (i.e. each doctor actually gets a whole 20 doses they can give to patients on the date this is supposed to be the case, nobody wanted the political drama of not giving some doctors the option or having even smaller numbers - and hopefully there is enough further supply to keep at least that rate going per week. The doctors bit is seen as even more important now more people are worried, since especially for the elderly it's assumed talking to their familiar doctor works better to calm those fears than formal invites to a center somewhere).

Similarly, while the reserving second doses has been debated a lot, it's the publicly announced policy (I don't have the exact stats on hand what percentage that is, it was in one of the many dashboards...) and the back-and-forth of who will deliver how much when doesn't exactly makes a change away from that attractive (because if you do change that, deliveries get cut again and suddenly you need to either not give someone a second dose on schedule or take someones appointment for the first away, you will get the blame however much sense it makes overall to accept that risk.).

Again, I'm fully admitting this has not been and is not going as smoothly as it could, but the "it's not needed" narrative is just BS. It makes a nice simple narrative, but that's about it, and ignorance is the most positive interpretation why people might peddle it.

Missing every delivery target counts for you as success? Your business partners/managers will likely disagree.

> Many of us are in a tough situation so we'll accept the crappy AZ

The AZ is pretty much equal (at least) in effectiveness to the other vaccines. This is agreed by the UK regulators (and until Brexit the UK were considered expert enough to run the EU one), the EU regulators, the German regulators, etc, and now the US regulators (not yet approved, I know, but their opinion is now released). How many of these world-reknowned establishments need to say the same thing before you get it?

By saying "crappy AZ" your choice of words is a major part of the problem. You are part of the problem.

As for "competing with the likes of Pfizer", I have the greatest respect for the science behind Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and all the others - but with equal performance, at normal temperatures, at a fraction of the cost of the others, and with sub-licensed manufacturing around the world, the AZ vaccine is currently aiming to be the one that 90% of the global population will be relying on.

The "crappy" Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is by a long way the world's best hope (in medical terms). It's very gracious of you to "accept the crappy AZ" (talk about ungrateful) - but if you're willing to take the benefit the least you could do is stop undermining it by posting rubbish on a thread discussing the very story that contradicts you.

In an alternative universe, where we only had AZ maybe it would be considered awesome, but in our dimension, we have vaccines which offer better protection and fewer side-effects than AZ.

AZ's always been clouded in controversy from the botched trials, to the reduced effectiveness against variants up to the significant discomfort after vaccination in a non-negligible amount of people. And then there was the rare form of thrombosis, which is not 100% elucidated yet.

Why would anyone with a choice want AZ when there's Pfizer? And this is exactly what was happening all over Europe, but also in the US and Israel - people choose Pfizer in spite of the costs and complicated distribution.

It's particularly telling that the US prefers keeping tens of millions of doses of the super-awesome AZ on ice and continues with Pfizer.

Better protection just isn't true. The figures are not only within a few percent in most studies, but in some studies AZ is ahead. This is all about stats, and those will vary depending upon the sample size and population.

Side-effects? Fair enough. But so what? Most medication has side effects. Incidentally the US CDC says that with the Pfizer one "77.4% reported at least one systemic reaction" and "fatigue, headache and new or worsened muscle pain were most common". This isn't to say AZ may not have higher incidence, but to point out that it doesn't matter which you choose there may still be side-effects, and anecdotes about AZ are faster to spread due to the unwarranted distrust.

The controversy AZ has been clouded in has mostly been politically motivated, AZ miscommunications, natural issues with vaccine yields, or plain wrong. Apart from the rare blood issue, most of it has been either not genuine or irrelevant. Even for the blood issue there are more regulators, governments, and doctors who say it is not a statistical issue than there are who do. It's all about the optics though.

People should not be turning down an AZ vaccine to wait potentially months for a different vaccine (which will still have it's own side effects even if lower). A day or two of side effects vs an extra few months protection is a no-brainer.

People choose Pfizer (which I am not knocking; I'd gladly have it if offered) based on what they read - and the press war is being won by AZ detractors despite the number of times they are wrong (eg Macron saying quasi-inneffective for older people and then France only wanting to use it for older people, or the UK choosing to wait longer than a couple of weeks between doses, being called terrible and irresponsible, but now even the WHO says that improves protection).

As for the US keeping doses on ice, that's not "particularly telling" at all. It isn't approved for use there yet. And they aren't in a hurry as they have enough of the other vaccines. Plus, they are 'loaning' millions of AZ vaccine doses to Mexico and Canada which they wouldn't do unless they thought it was pretty safe (as their FDC has already publicly said it is).

Pfizer seems to be a great vaccine. But so is AstraZeneca and continual unwarranted attacks risks destroying trust in a vaccine (AZ) which is being produced at cost in over a dozen countries and is intended to form up to 90% of the world's protection.

---

To risk being overly melodramatic, unlike their counterparts (and admittedly at the prompting of the UK government and Oxford University) AstraZeneca producing billions of doses (the plan) at cost in multiple countries using local production is actually the rare example of a drug company almost literally saving the world without profiteering whilst they do it. They should be applauded, not continually attacked.

In the same way (and I don't like saying this as I believe in the EU and voted remain in the British referendum) the EU attacks the UK for not sharing, when the British government co-funded vaccine development at a British university and ensured a British/Swedish partner providing at-cost production for the world, whilst the EU haggled about prices.

> so we'll accept the crappy AZ

It's the use of crappy sort of phrases like this that lead to fear, uncertainty and doubt.

No, it's the botched trials, reports about reduced effectiveness from politicians and specialists and reports about side-effects.

> the feeling I got from Italy wasn't so much "see! vaccines are dangerous! I am not getting a jab!, but rather "it looks like AstraZeneca may not be entirely safe, I demand a Moderna or Pfizer jab!"

N=1, but example from my own family circles is: "See! Vaccines are dangerous! If AstraZeneca was safe, half of the world wouldn't be putting it on hold! I'm not going to take it, and don't talk to me about Pfizer and Moderna - I don't want an mRNA vaccine, they're too new technology, who knows what their side effects are. If I really, really have to take a vaccine, I'll wait for Johnson & Johnson."

Which, of course, is almost entirely unavailable here (Poland).

Another big reason why the vaccine orders were delayed in the EU was that many governments were unconvinced about mRNA vaccines and wanted a classical vaccine. So your family's in good company there.

They're also right that we don't know what the side-effects are. We're reasonably sure that there are no long-term damaging effects and know that the current crisis justifies the risk of using this new form of vaccine.

> Another big reason why the vaccine orders were delayed in the EU was that many governments were unconvinced about mRNA vaccines and wanted a classical vaccine.

Which is a weird stance in my opinion. Even if you're skeptical about safety and effectiveness, not ordering them as soon as they're available makes little sense. Yes, it costs money, but significantly less than locking down for a week or two.

It felt a bit like "let's not invest in a backup system yet, we don't know whether we'll need it".

I think price + unproven was a big concern for the less wealthy countries.

One has to keep in mind with the EU that we tried our best to avoid splitting the continent into winners and losers based on which countries were the wealthiest. Unfortunately we ended up being on the losing side together, but the driving idea wasn't wrong. :-)

It was also not wrong to want to do a complete instead of emergency certification of the vaccine or pressing e.g. Pfizer to take responsibility for unwanted side-effects. Other countries risked more and it seems that they were favoured by fortune.

To be fair, even the mRNA manufacturers weren't that optimistic a year ago. Their development speed and efficacy are pleasant surprise.

> The anti-vax crowd is complete nonsense

friendly reminder that this is factually false. vaccines can and do cause harm all the time. there is danger in getting all medicine, and more danger in rushed medicines with potential unstudied long-term side effects.

thats not to say that the history of vaccine use isnt overwhelmingly net positive, with the net-positive per cost metric being somehow even higher, but the fastest way to discredit yourself is to ignore the obviously valid and true points of your opponent, even if their overarching thesis is wrong.

> friendly reminder that this is factually false

The anti-vax crowd is complete nonsense. Regardless of any actual side-effects or concerns about the actual medicine and science of vaccines, the anti-vax crowd is still conspiracy theory nonsense. They don't go at it rationally, and no discourse is possible with them.

I discourse a bit. I feel it's my duty to debunk a little. Usually it's not hard - a brief googling shows the meme of the day to be junk.

I believe it's not possible precisely because the underlying mentality is one of "they are lying to us". So you debunk the meme of the day and the next meme is waiting for you tomorrow, repeated by the same people.

You gain nothing by debunking today's meme. No lesson will be learned because the problem is not one that can be solved by reasoning. No general conclusions are drawn. It's tiresome and futile, and ultimately the anti-vaxxer crowd just "wants to believe"... in conspiracies.

I find it's also not always as easy as you put it to debunk crap. It requires time, effort, digging up numbers, comparing statistics, etc, whereas making shit up takes almost no effort.

In this case, the authorities actually are lying to people about vaccines, just in the opposite direction than the one than usually hypothesised (i.e. claiming it's dangerous and useless when in fact it's safe and effective).

This fact - and it is undeniable, heavily documented fact by this point - unfortunately will make anti-vax theories far more prevalent and influential in the coming years. The way that EU governments and "experts" are willing to lie at every level about vaccine safety is by now completely established. Simply watching national governments disagreeing with the EMA, with the outcomes of US trials, suspending then resuming vaccines etc demonstrates this beyond doubt. The trustworthiness of expertise and the authorities is often the primary argument against anti-vaxxers and that argument is now on fire. New arguments need to be found, but what? How can trust be recovered after this?

Dunno. Here's one I prepared earlier https://www.reddit.com/r/Wuhan_Flu/comments/m979pb/28year_ol...

> The Anti-Vax crowd will use whatever happens

You trust your government and medial institutions, fine. My government has been caught lying over and over “for the public good” during this pandemic, but also on topics like feminism. We know they would lie again without an afterthought like they have in the past, for example giving AIDS to people through blood transfusion (4000 victims because they didn’t want to be seen doubting) or Chernobyl (“Don’t worry, the cloud didn’t reach France” - It did), or bombing the Greenpeace boat with people inside in NZ, or giving 6 diplomatic passports to Benalla and when he was caught beating up political opponents for the service of the king, “seize his passport”... but not seizing the remaining 5 of them.

You may live in a democracy, but we don’t. We literally have laws that the press isn’t free to talk during the pandemic.

People don’t trust doctors and politicians, simply because they have been shown several times to not be trustworthy. The only remedy is not to take more or less precaution; the only remedy is to start being trustworthy, having open science, having a talk about the risks, and not trying to slander or sue people who have opinions that are not approved by the nomenklatura.

As a reminder, the Ordre des Médecins has sued Dr Raoult for “violating fraternity”. The rest of the accusations I’m not a doctor, but “violating fraternity”? Is that science we are talking about, does physics include “follow whatever the group says”?

In the end, as long as you believe it is a thing to “lie for the public good”, it is good to trust absolutely no figure we are given and doubt about every single thing you say.

> My government has been caught lying over and over “for the public good” during this pandemic, but also on topics like feminism.

I'm not familiar with what's been going in your country (France?), but I'd suggest some heavy citations to back up a lightning-rod statement like the above. It's particularly surprising from a country with a pretty good international reputation for press freedom. Were these "feminist lies" arguably innocent innumeracy / failing to perform multivariate regression?

You need a citation for government lying to people?

Their point was that people generally don't trust institutions anymore. This much is self evident.

> You need a citation for government lying to people?

When someone mixes in a vague accusation about the government lying for the benefit of a protected group, without citations, it's a bit of a warning sign. I totally believe governments lie, but citations always help credibility.

By the latter are you referring to the pay gap myth? If so it's well beyond innocent innumeracy because feminists have been doing univariate "analysis" to make false claims of pay discrimination since the 1980s, and people have been pointing out the need to do multivariate analysis for just as long. It doesn't make any difference, they still make exactly the same claims in exactly the same way no matter how often it gets debunked.

My best wild guess is that the GP is referring to univariate pay gap studies, but I'd like to do better than a wild guess.

My wife is in finance and accounting, and has a good friend who is a serial entrepreneur with several small businesses, employing a few more women than men. After one of these univariate statistics was quoted on the news, my wife (who professionally thinks about cost savings all day) asked me a question that boiled down to "Hey... it would be wrong and sexist of course... but could my friend save 5-10% on salaries by hiring nearly exclusively top-notch women?" That's when I explained univariate and multivariate regression, and why she should always be skeptical about any study that doesn't assign weights to multiple plausible factors.

There are still plenty of smart people out there who haven't heard about the flaws in some of these studies. Unfortunately, it's much easier to fit a narrative to an oversimplified problem with a simplistic solution. If only mean income were a good proxy for how effectively society helps people achieve fulfillment and life goals, fair governance would be much easier. Don't get me wrong. I believe governments should do more to help reduce constraints on women that impede their life goals and fulfillment, but it looks like mean hourly income isn't a great proxy for measuring progress in fulfillment.

Your wife is one thing and understandable because she's (presumably) not a full time feminist advocate. But I still routinely see this claim be made by e.g. journalists who have been writing about feminism their entire careers, or people who appear to be spending most of their time on such advocacy. Those people either know, or they are so dumb they never had the obvious thought that occurred immediately to your wife. I don't think they're dumb as they're normally quite eloquent, they just don't want to lose that powerful talking point.

> My government has been caught lying over and over “for the public good” during this pandemic

All governments do it. It's just that some are so good at lying that a large part of the naive population actually believe that the government is doing things for their own good. People generally have been indoctrinated when they are very young in schools.

>You may live in a democracy, but we don’t.

This is also true the world over. Elections in 'democracies' are a sham. Notice the people who get elected, they are often the same group of elites. A 'democratic' society is one where the dictators have mastered the art of a bloodless coup. A vote gives your average Joe citizen the illusion of have a say when in reality has little or none.

In the end what generally makes a better society is generally overall 'better' citizens. (however one may define 'better')

> or Chernobyl (“Don’t worry, the cloud didn’t reach France” - It did),

This is a huge urban legend, which has been thoroughly debunked.

I'm not in the mood to look for sources, but the gist is that the "clouds stopped at the borders" meme came from a few specific TV reports that were extremely misinterpreted, not from any sort of official communication.

> My government has been caught lying over and over “for the public good” [...]

I just see decades old, one time events completely unrelated to the current government.

> We literally have laws that the press isn’t free to talk during the pandemic.

[citation needed]

> People don’t trust doctors and politicians, simply because they have been shown several times to not be trustworthy.

French people don't trust doctors because France in one of the leading countries in homeopathy, osteopathy and various quackery spending. Half of the typical pharmacy's stock is a healthcare scam. French are also the top antivax population in the west. [0] So it's hardly surprising that the average Frenchman's perception of what a sound healthcare policy looks like is absolute bonkers.

French people not trusting doctors is not a consequence of bad medical practice, but a symptom of something else. After all, French healthcare routinely ranks in the top 10 in the world, and often top 1 [1].

Then Macron arrives and removes homeopathy from the social security reimbursement program because it lacks any demonstrated effectivity and loads of French people complain. [2]

The government is far from being perfect, but in this particular topic, I'll side with it, thanks.

> The only remedy is not to take more or less precaution; the only remedy is to start being trustworthy, having open science, having a talk about the risks, and not trying to slander or sue people who have opinions that are not approved by the nomenklatura. As a reminder, the Ordre des Médecins has sued Dr Raoult for “violating fraternity”. The rest of the accusations I’m not a doctor, but “violating fraternity”? Is that science we are talking about, does physics include “follow whatever the group says”?

Since his rise to fame, Raoult has been charging 1264 € per consultation, many of those for prescribing a hydroxychloroquine treatment [3]. C'est quoi ça, conventionné secteur arnaque ? Excuse my literal French but the parent knows what I'm talking about. Those rates are roughly 15 times what a well-rated specialist would charge after decades of practice.

That's leaving aside that his hydroxychloroquine fixation is unawarded as it's been shown again and again that its benefits, if any, are very small.[4]

Raoult has been doing a pump-and-dump of his medical career to retire comfortably, and he's masterfully catered the contrarian sector of the French population to do so. It's textbook medical malpractice. The damage caused by him is to be picked up by his colleagues, so, yeah, that's "violation de la fraternité".

[0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-the-most-anti-vaxx...

[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/best-heal...

[2] https://www.france24.com/en/20190710-outrage-france-govt-can...

[3] https://www.ladepeche.fr/2021/03/09/covid-19-des-visites-de-...

[4] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9...

> You may live in a democracy, but we don’t.

France is not a democracy?

> Now being extra careful is criticized as undermining trust in vaccines?

Some people certainly see it that way, but it seems to me like it's the perfect way to regain trust exactly by demonstrating an extreme sensitivity to actual issues.

Besides, something I don't get: Doesn't vaccine demand still way outstrip supply? Should that be the case, "skeptics" and whatever shouldn't matter for now, should they? Neither would stopping vaccination for a moment since we're already running on tiny buffers because we have gigantic vaccination capacity, right?

Why not let the early adopters get it to demonstrate safety and just get it out to the people? There are early & late adopters with any technology and as something spreads organically you will also have a ton of "Oh, my friend got it and they're fine!" moments.

It's the vaccine bans that are bad. Careful review is not. When your government doesn't let you take something you want, it's a ban we just aren't using the word.

This one was particularly eggregious, because even if the side effect was caused by AZ (unlikely but possible), it would still make sense to take the vaccine.

But giving people a choice is the important thing, particularly in a situation where risk profiles vary so widely. Using pessimistic assumptions and data we knew in July 2020 it made sense to lift the ban, let alone now.

The whole argument is based on a false dichotomy between having the vaccine or not having the vaccine. When really it is a choice between have vaccine (possible side effects) or get covid (definite well documented effects). They should explain the decisions in those terms.

Anti-vax comes from fear.

Problem with vaccines is that you take them when you're healthy. People don't worry as much when they're healthy.

When you're sick and lying in a hospital bed you're much less hesitant to 'try this one more drug' in hopes of getting better.

> The Anti-Vax crowd will use whatever happens

I assure you that if those that resign from AZ would take a jab with Pfizer or Moderna. But in e.g. Poland they can't because those more pricey vaccines are reserved form >= 70 year olds.

This is an incredibly important lesson in public communications.

'The Crowd' is dumb, even if it's made up of mostly smart people.

'Fact' and 'Communications' are completely different things.

FYI it's one of the reasons for cancel culture as well. Most people are not offended, or at least might understand a situation given context. But in a flurry of hype, all of that gets lost.

This is multiplied by social media.

This is why people occupying positions of integrity i.e. Doctors, Presidents's of Countries have a double responsibility to the Truth to the point where it should be legislated.

That said - we always need to support legitimate contrarians - but it needs to be based on fact, not hyperbole.

There are some lunatic anti-vaxx doctors on TikTok and I'm really not comfortable with it. 'Free Speech' to disseminate absolute lies is literally costing lives.

The anti vaxx crowd is already against it anyway. The way Europe is treating AZ does mean generally pro-vaxx people become sceptical as well. And I see that effect in Germany as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com