It Will Make Scientific Sense to Offer Booster After Three Months
spiegel.de
spiegel.de
This exchange would NEVER happen in North America:
DER SPIEGEL: Is it also possible that the next variant will already be here before you even start production?
Şahin: I've been thinking hard over the past few days about why we're actually seeing a variant like Omicron right now, what caused it. In doing so, I remembered being concerned about one thing earlier this year: In people with suppressed immune systems, the virus might get too much time to accumulate mutations and evolve. It appears to me that this is exactly what happened with Omicron: The virus has been able to undergo a prolonged evolution in a small group of people.
DER SPIEGEL: Was that an unfortunate coincidence, or are such strongly mutated variants a constant threat?
Şahin: It certainly could happen more often. Basically, it’s like this: Once Omicron spreads, the virus variant that comes after it will have to come up with something new to make the leap into the next generation. We would then be constantly facing a new pathogen.
If? Isn't this how contagious respiratory diseases always work?
Facts that points to a faulty conclusion on my part, will be enough to change the conclusion.
Failure to change views based on facts, is a strange concept when dealing with scientific concepts.
And on a completely unrelated note:
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
My point is simply that "scientific consensus" has lost some of its brand value.
Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified.
>> "What about sugar."
Is the definition of whataboutism.
>Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified.
Not always true. You just need to provide data (or identify an error in their data/methodology/etc.) that is convincing enough to overcome the difference in weight afforded to an expert opinion and non-expert opinion.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not to say that you are wrong, you very well could be correct, but the onus is on you to prove why your non-expert opinion should be weighted higher than hundreds of experts from various countries.
And my reply would be: if you have evidence that the current consensus has been purchased, I am all ears.
The commenter’s point was that due to other scandal, “scientific consensus” doesn’t hold the same weight it once might have held. Especially when powerful industries and Lot’s O’Money are involved. Not just sugar, but energy, tobacco, and yes…even other pharmaceuticals. TBH there seems to be a pretty direct correlation between any industry that tends to be regularly described as “Big [name of industry]” and these sort of scientific oopsies that turn up a decade or so later.
I’m fully vaccinated and boosted, but I am not going to be at all surprised if 10 years from now there is an “oops” with this too.
I agree, evidence may exist and if it does, I hope to see it.
The parent poster, in contrast, simply gave a sarcastic "Yep, case closed" and then, with no context, placed a link to the sugar scandal. Effectively, as I read it, "Yeah sure... but what about that thing with sugar?".
I'm not even arguing that the stance is wrong. Your middle paragraph, while holding a similar view, actually invites discussion around the topic. Hand-waving to an article with a sarcastic remark is just a deflection. Proposing an equivalence between two disparate situations with nothing behind it.
The other portion of my comment just suggests that you should have strong evidence (or argument that the strong evidence exists) when making strong claims, and that if you're a non-expert in the field you need to demonstrate why your non-expert opinion is equivalent to that of many experts. I'm not even sure how that is controversial, but apparently it is.
At any rate, I see both sides. I don’t trust big pharma or government, but I trust my doctor. If tomorrow he tells me “don’t get the next booster”, I’m not going to get it.
This isn't whataboutism.
Whataboutism is reacting to "black lives matter" with "all lives matter".
It's a defensive argument to protect against your opponent shifting the goal posts.
However, it doesn't apply when your subject is a function of its context. In other words, whataboutism doesn't work when 2 subjects depend on each other, as they do here. This isn't "what about sugar", this is "how do we know there's no conflict of interest".
The onus is not on me to prove anything about the booster, it's on them to prove that they're worth listening to.
If you want evidence, then you probably didn't read my link because the evidence for sugar didn't emerge for years after the fact. Dealing only in absolutes is absurd.
Life is like poker, by the time you have all the information it's already too late.
>And on a completely unrelated note:"
I'm not sure what nuance or critical thinking you want me to apply to that. My programming might be faulty, sorry.
>the onus is not on me to prove anything about the booster,
If you're starting off from a "I don't think scientific consensus holds much meaning" point of view, is there really anything that you would consider "proof" rather than Big Pharma manipulation? For eternity, you can just point back to that article and completely dismiss anything related to pharmaceuticals.
My comment says "how do we know there's no conflict of interest".
If you weren't busy building strawmen you might've caught the nuance.
Further, there's a variety of proof I would accept. My goal is to build trust, not to be a perpetual cynic.
I never would have guessed that from your sarcastic comment and hand-wave to an article, followed up by "My point is simply that "scientific consensus" has lost some of its brand value." and scare-quoting around experts (implying, you know, that they aren't experts).
But you are correct, I conflated lolsal's interpretation of your comment with what you had said. My bad.
The interview is with the CEO of BioNTech, not an impartial individual regardless of his qualifications.
Of course this alone doesn't mean anything.
Though we can attempt to create meaning by applying context, from Dec 2020:
> Moderna's chief medical officer, Tal Zaks, said last month that he believed it was likely the vaccine would prevent transmission but warned that there was not yet "sufficient evidence" of it.
https://www.businessinsider.com/who-says-no-evidence-coronav...
A quote that is technically correct, but at the time was highly suggestive, and eventually proved to be way off base.
So here we are again, taking quotes from "experts".
I absolutely would not recommend getting a vaccine booster shot every 3 months. Your plasma cells are not meant to proliferate to that extent.
In the US, I would like to see the recommendation change to a single Pfizer shot with second shot and booster language changed to that of optimization, rather than necessity. The single shot, even after several months, is still very effective against severe cases. I believe the vaccination rate would increase and that pressing to get our 1+ shot rate above 90% could be a genuine bipartisan rally.
Moderna holds 6 months on a 80% level. But the Moderna risk is a bit higher for younger, so the 3 months boosters are for the younger ones.
But this is all outdated with Omicron. They need adapted boosters first. Or wait for the real risk analysis. As it looks like COVID-19 goes the way of all such waves. The best surviving mutations get weaker and more infectious, until they end at the common cold. Omicron is extremely weak so far. Let's hope it stays that way
The pfizer vaccine trials ended over a year ago[1]. Why are we only finding out about the reduced protection now? If the vaccine only works for three months, we should have known about that 10 months ago.
[1] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/booster-shot-12-months-provide...
[2] https://www.cnbc.com/video/2021/09/30/pfizer-biontech-vaccin...
I refuse to live in fear.
GP is therefore implying that GGP is making an insincere appeal to emotion rather than engaging with the discussion at hand.
The huge upside is getting to hang out with people who otherwise you only know via Zoom.
It seems like overkill, a massive over reaction, to me. It’s just a feeling, and I look forward to the mental health studies that will eventually come.
My wife and I have tried to make life as normal and enjoyable during Covid-19. One thing that helps hugely is seeing friends and family often, but outside. Breakfast and coffee in a yard, or everyone take a picnic lunch to a park. Every moment we live is a gift, and everyone needs to figure out for themselves how to live a free and inspired life.
Constant boosters, lockdowns, etc are burning lots of good will offered by people who originally opted to compromise personal liberty for the greater public good. It's getting old and the ROI of the compromise is getting smaller every day.
My mother got the 3rd dose a few weeks before me and on the 3rd day one of her lower-legs went numb. She had some therapy in the hospital and is OK now, but I'm afraid how she could react to a possible future vaccination. I'm not even sure the vaccination was the cause.
I have many antivaxx coworkers and I would never mention something like that in front of them. Just today the most fanatical of them called in sick with "the flu". He doesn't even want to get tested for Covid.
The vaccine has real side effects, the faster we can have a civic conversation about it the better off we all are.
I have severe cardiovascular problems and cannot get the vaccine. I’m judged and called an antivaxxer all the time. It’s not us vs them, we’re all in it together.
Being open and honest is always the best path. Especially when you disagree.
My dad gets the flu shot each year. He’s not an anti-vaxxer. The COVID shot seems different though.
My dad still refuses to get a vaccine because all he hears is mis- and disinformation. He’s recently changed to “leaning toward getting the shot,” which is great, but he wants to drive another family member around this weekend who is currently suffering from COVID-19.
Being open and honest with him, I told him the most likely outcome for him, and even held back on how grim his particular prognosis would likely be given his risk factors. But people don’t want to hear the reality.
That reality is that these vaccines are, statistically, safe and effective for the vast majority of the population. (I know that you weren’t asserting otherwise, and that you aren’t in that majority.) There comes a point when refusal to engage with that reality in typical circumstances becomes a dividing line. It might be fear driven for those who don’t have a contraindicated condition, but it’s hard not think of refusal by people in medically typical circumstances, at this point, to be precious and selfish.
It seems that for some people there's an intrinsically greater distrust of vaccines (a synthetic thing) than disease (a natural thing).
It's a long time since we were in this together. It's against the people who don't vaccinate now.
I'm sorry you're being judged, that's awful.
Now we are talking about more and more frequent vaccine booster doses. Shouldn't that be a concern?