This is a re-post of an article originally published on pundit.co.nz. It is here with permission.
Some Māori health providers recently speculated that misinformation spread via social media is partly to blame for the poor vaccination rates among Māori (below the age of 40 – it is about two-thirds of the Pakeha rate). (In contrast Asians and Pasifika rates tend to be ahead the Pakeha ones.) Presumably the Māori providers, nearer the ground than I, have detected vaccine hesitancy.
Māori are not unique. Vaccine hesitancy and a lack of trust in vaccine science is more widespread than one might expect, given the evidence overwhelmingly favouring vaccination as a way of markedly reducing the threat of the Covid virus to the individual and to the wider community in which he or she lives. (I like the image that not vaccinating is like leaving your lights on in a blitz. It not only made you a better target for the bombers, but threatened your neighbours.)
One of the reasons that people may not trust the science is the way science has been behaving. That is a reasonable inference from Stuart Ritchie’s Science Fictions which records how poor quality science undermines the standards scientists set for themselves.
Ritchie is a psychologist but his detailed examples range across medicine, physics, nutrition, education, genetics, economics, and the search for extraterrestrial life. He shows how the increasing commercial pressures on science have led to a form of organisation which corrupts the spirit of the enterprise. The resulting fraud, bias, negligence, and hype undermines public confidence in science. That may well spill over into unnecessary scepticism about the efficacy of vaccinations.
‘Fraud’ by a scientist is always a possibility as it is elsewhere in human life. Ritchie gives some uncomfortable examples, although pure fraud is not that common.
Much more common is ‘bias’ where the researcher has a particular view and reworks the results to confirm the view, instead of starting off with a view and trying to reject it, only accept the hypothesis when all other possibilities prove to be less plausible explanations. (And if one finds a better explanation ...WOW!)
Many readers will find challenging (as Ritchie acknowledges) the centre of the chapter on bias in which he explains statistical testing. If so, skip pages 90 to 112. That means you wont have ‘p-hacking’ explained. When later in the book, the term is used, substitute the economists’ term ‘data mining’, which is manipulating the data until the researcher gets the desired answer: ‘the data is tortured until it confesses’.
Negligence is when scientists make unintentional errors – I would prefer to call it ‘mistakes’. We all make them, but we usually self-correct. Some slip through the net. Ritchie suggests the science professions are not always good at picking such errors up because crosschecking others’ work is not encouraged.
Fraud, bias and negligence are all magnified by hype, when the research goes into the public domain and the typically limited research is twisted to draw conclusions which are not justified. Ritchie gives some extraordinary examples too detailed to report here. But there are patterns like ‘unwarranted advice’ (conclusions that the study does not support); the ‘cross-species leap’ (generalising from a species studies, such as on mice, to humans – 90 percent of the mice findings do not generalise); inferring ‘causation from correlation’ (a nice example I recently came across is that regions with more tractors have higher rates of colorectal cancer – they both occur in rural areas).
He does not deign to mention a common New Zealand approach of ‘not having a contrast’ such as reporting that X percent of group A (which the investigator usually belongs to) suffers condition N without mentioning the rate for group non-A or other subgroups (which might be the same).
And there is a widespread ‘misunderstanding of sampling theory’. It requires random samples; non-random samples generate biased results. A nice recent example of this ignorance was the criticism of Pasifika having high Covid case rates. But the cases are not from a random sample – you catch it in your community – but the clusters might be. (I celebrate that the Pasifika are strong community peoples; it is unfortunate that such communities makes it easier for Covid to spread).
Hyping is nicely captured in a recent cover story of The Listener: ‘Under the Lid: Top Harvard professor on smarter thinking’. The use of ‘top’ is a dead giveaway; the story is for the credulous. It is either going to be banal or draw stronger conclusions than the (probably quality) research justifies. The same unwarranted advice happens in economics too, when the commentator makes a conclusion which is outside the available evidence but which often – as you wont be surprised – reflects their politics. Journalism has devalued the term ‘expert’ to mean somebody with status and an opinion.
Note too, the reference in the cover story to a prestigious university. I was struck by how often such institutions appeared among Ritchie’s examples, probably because they have so many researchers but it is compounds our credulity. (Ritchie has examples of institutions defending a poor quality researcher when they should have known better.)
Prestige is often key to understanding fictional science. Consider the recent controversy over whether that mātauranga Māori was a science. The issue hinges on the meaning of ‘science’, the German term for which is ‘Wissenschaft’. But the word also has a broader meaning – the systematic pursuit of knowledge, learning, and scholarship (especially as contrasted with its application). That includes a lot of knowledge which is not ‘science’ as the term is usually used – including literature (a type of knowledge which, as my regular readers well know, I greatly respect).
Science can be characterised by the (Robert) Merton criteria:
- universalism: scientific validity is independent of the sociopolitical status/personal attributes of its participants;
- disinterestedness: scientific institutions act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than for the personal gain of individuals within them;
- communality: all scientists should have common ownership of scientific goods (intellectual property), to promote collective collaboration; secrecy is the opposite of this norm;
- organised scepticism: scientific claims should be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted: both in methodology and institutional codes of conduct.
Does mātauranga Māori want to meet these criteria? Would it be happy with the logic that all scientific knowledge is tentative? One of our greatest scientists was Isaac Newton, but a century ago his account of the universe was overturned by Albert Einstein. Today, there is evidence that Einstein’s theory is also problematic but scientists have yet to work out an alternative to replace it.
Mātauranga Māori seems to be like religious truth with its focus on eternal verities. It would be terrible if being overly rigid about Māori science limited some young Māori going into scientific careers; one day one may be awarded a Nobel Prize. There are already some very good Māori scientists (including one who signed the Auckland critique). I cannot speak for them but I should not be surprised if they respect mātauranga Māori but keep it in a different part of their being (just as many non-Māori scientists hold their religious beliefs).
The other worry is that confusing mātauranga Māori with science confuses the ordinary Māori which leads to the vaccine hesitancy which concerned those Māori public health providers. They should take a leaf from their Pasifika cousins who hold to their religious verities but who get vaccinated.
Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth by Stuart Ritchie
Brian Easton, an independent scholar, is an economist, social statistician, public policy analyst and historian. He was the Listener economic columnist from 1978 to 2014. This is a re-post of an article originally published on pundit.co.nz. It is here with permission.
96 Comments
The two examples of 'science' failing are the MMR/autism false study, and the IARC findings on glyphosate.
In the MMR/autism case, the now struck-off doctor in charge of the study contorted the evidence and samples sizes to affirm his bias (and to help get paid for the tort case he was supposedly an expert witness for).
"Inferring ‘causation from correlation’ " happened with Glyphosate - the only major study that found that glyphosate causes cancer took a lot of cross species evidence from rats and mice and applied it to humans. Then they ignored a massive longitudinal study of humans that contradicted everything they had mined from their cherry picked data. Oh, and then the lead scientist went on to become an expert witness in a major tort worth billions.
Sound familiar? And the result of these two major breaches is widespread vaccine hesitancy/antivax 20 years later (with associated measles epidemics) on the one hand, and the vilification of an incredibly effective and low toxicity herbicide that replaced some truly nasty and dangerous herbicides.
The reverse is true with "Roundup" studies. The in house studies that provide safety research on this product, have been found to be very poor quality. The reason Monsanto/Bayer have been so aggressive in the promotion of this product, is their whole transgenics crop development program revolves around it.
This is a good article. The joke is that he hasn't looked at Economics with the same microscope.
It has all the biases; all the media regurgitation, all the 'Top' connotations.
But it fails to reference the Bounded System within which it operates. Funny indeed to find one such, castigating real science. Failures acknowledged, real science still has the inside running. By some orders of magnitude, too......
"Science is far from a perfect instrument of knowledge. It’s just the best we have. In this respect, as in many others, it’s like democracy. Science by itself cannot advocate courses of human action, but it can certainly illuminate the possible consequences of alternative courses of action.
The scientific way of thinking is at once imaginative and disciplined. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let the facts in, even when they don’t conform to our preconceptions. It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see which best fit the facts. It urges on us a delicate balance between no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and the most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of everything — new ideas and established wisdom. This kind of thinking is also an essential tool for a democracy in an age of change."
- Carl Sagan
Science has been successful. It was the scientific revolution that under pinned the industrial revolution that led to Cook sailing to the Pacific rather than those expert Polynesian sailors arriving in Europe. So successful that the term is misused as in Scientology and Christian Science.
If you think of Science as a methodical system of trial and error then it does match Maori ancestors exploration of the Pacific. How many sailed off to never return and how many returned with news of uninhabited islands?
Another parallel would be the need for numeracy. The first thing I was told by my university lecturer in Physics was "if you can't measure it then it isn't science" and the second statement was "every measurement has to include the margin of error". Polynesian navigators must have measured angles to stars, number of waves crossed, etc and then manipulated them in a superb feat of mental arithmetic.
There is nothing wrong with all and any sciences running alongside each. Baking a cake involves science, how certain ingredients react with others, amounts of them, the order you add them and cooking time and temp.
I think restricting the word 'science' to only one aspect of it, is like insisting that marriage should only apply to one man, one woman.
A lot of 'alternative' sciences feature more in the preventative, maintenance category and their are lots of healing properties in natural things.
The thing that is the issue is when people go OTT and refuse to accept 'conventional' science and even accuse it of actually coming after them to harm them. Encompass it all and much of that will just disappear, and a bit more trust might come from it.
I have always been given a very strict definition of science, as per Francis Bacon, that it is essentially a process of throwing significant effort (studies, labs, money) at disproving a "truth". Only once it stands up to all efforts and can be recreated (and must be recreated) a number of times can it be called a scientific truth.
I think anything else is a completely different matter.
Either the English language needs to be expanded or better harnessed to clarify the strict definition of science as a result of the scientific method, or other things need to be called something else.
Medicine needs the scientific method and can't afford to be confused with anything else, which is what I believe the writer of this article is pointing to.
If you want to keep driving alternatives further and further to the fringes and into the realms of crazy, then fine. I don't.
I've spent the bulk of my life walking around with canyons on my heels, nothing addressed it, till my daughter made up a mixture that has done the trick, trouble is she is also an anti vaxxer, she has gone to the fringes because of the exclusions of natural medicines. I say, as long as they aren't recommending swallowing bleach or Ivermectin (in a manner of speaking) they should take their rightful place in the toolbox.
Structurally it looks like you are responding to my comment but I don't think you can be. If you think you are try reading it again slowly. I made no mention of alternative medicine or its place in modern society. I didn't at all talk about my opinion of the scientific method, which is actually very mixed.
What we need are clear definitions in these crazy crazy times so people don't end up throttling each other over mixed messages.
This business of poor Maori vaccination rates has to be seen in the light of a strong reluctance by Maori to engage in any health matters. For example. I know somebody who worked in a health practice that was totally Maori centered, both practitioners and patients. Apart from the paperwork, a lot of their time was spend chasing patients. In the morning, staff would ring patients to make appointments for the practitioners to visit. When they did visit, more often than not the patients were not there. So next day they would try again. How on earth do you cope with that? At the end of the day, people to have to take responsibility for themselves. I felt really sorry for Pene Henry on TV over the weekend, because in the context of our crushingly PC environment he was being forced to apologise for Maoris failure to take responsibility for themselves despite the governments bending over backwards to bend the rules and favor them being vaccinated in preference to everybody else. They are behaving like children with parents who fail to let them take responsibility for themselves. Everything that they suffer is somebody else's fault. Nothing will change with them until they grow up and start taking responsibility for them selves. As a kaumatua once said to me, "the worst thing that happened to the Maoris was the welfare state.
Love it… funny thing is, most of this wokeism, ‘must look after minorities’ come from white privileged educated comfortable bureaucratic class who probably wouldn’t have the foggiest understanding of what it is that drives the others to make choices in their life and live the way they do.
Humanity all require the same basic needs to survive and thrive…let’s not base our collective support on skin colour but on need.
Surely the will to survive is far more basic than any cultural overlay. As for the concentration of Maori DNA, I would suspect that most people identifying as Maori would be lucky to have 25% Maori DNA at most. So I suppose that being "Maori" is largely the culture that any individual chooses to adopt. More of a cultural construct than anything, and the ting to remember here is that culture is malleable and evolves. Sometimes quite quickly.
To turn things upside down, here is some interesting maths. If say we have 80% Europeans and 20% Maori and a Maori are defined as those with some Maori heritage, then in the next generation we will only have 64% Europeans and 37% Maori. The next generation 59% Maori. Next 83% Maori and after 5 generations 97% Maori. Given that Europeans have been in NZ for at least 5 generations i would not be surprised if there were a lot more people who could claim to be Maori. Ongoing immigration not withstanding. Maybe the way forward as the generations accumulate is for us all to embrace our Maori heritage and vote accordingly. Then it would only be the recent immigrant arrivals who would not be included in the mainstream and maybe that is appropriate until they have been here for at least a generation of so.
I don't know if I agree with everything you have said but I know someone that works in cancer organising patients treatment.
She says that some people fail to show up to their appointments (even after e.g. transport has been organised for them). These people are overwhelmingly Maori. I can't believe this, if I had cancer I would do everything in my power to get treatment ASAP. If Maori are hesitant to get their cancer treated I worry about the vaccine uptake as well.
Yes there is a very worrying aspect to this. The behavior is almost consistent with some body who is deeply depressed and in denial. In fact I am reminded of the stories of Aborigines who just die in prison for no other reason than they are locked up. Genetic though? Generally the Maori DNA is significantly diluted, so surely it is learned cultural behavior.
Looking around me, I can't think of one amenity or aspect of civilized life that hasn't been advanced by science except for religion which still enables some people who study science as part of their vocational training (e.g. engineers) to still believe in religion despite all the evidence against it.
In addition more people are informed from new age philosophies, homeopathic treatments, natural remedies etc and so we are moving to a post-science post-rational mindset.
Science, while rational, only has a partial understanding which is always improving over time as more knowledge is tested and revealed.
My favourite quotes from Thomas Kuhn's, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions;
“The normal-scientific tradition that emerges from a scientific revolution is not only incompatible but often actually incommensurable with that which has gone before” (p. 103).
“We may, to be more precise, have to relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth” (p. 171)
Kuhn called it the 'normal' scientific tradition (as per Bacon's scientific method) and hence more recently a new definition of post-normal science has emerged. It is a more inclusive process of knowledge-seeking, and takes into account what Aristotle called phronesis (translated as 'practical wisdom' in the English texts). The method/notion of post-normal scientific endeavor is more akin to (what is my understanding of) mātauranga Māori. Here is the Māori dictionary definition
Brian Easton's bullet pointed list of 'what is' science is what Kuhn refers to as normal science and, as Kuhn's thesis proves, normal science is subject to paradigm shifts (he coined the term in that thesis). A re-read of those two quotes (part of the conclusions of his thesis research - which was a PhD in physics) is useful (because they are so instructive).
Other ways of knowing, or the pursuit of knowledge, is much, much bigger than normal science. Post-normal science is much, much bigger than normal science. Mātauranga Māori is much, much bigger than normal science. And normal science is subject to paradigm shifts.
At the risk of angering the mainstream narrative guys, here’s some info from the primary literature.
Pacific islanders, and hence Maori are particularly at risk from covid.[reference 1] The article doesn’t go into why but there’s likely to be socioeconomic factors and health comorbidities involved.
[1] https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed…
Getting vaccinated protects nobody but yourself. The widely propagated nonsense that getting yourself vaccinated protects other people has no factual or scientific basis. If you get sick then don’t go to work! That’s how you protect other people.
If you’ve already had covid or you’re young and healthy then you’ve got virtually no risk from covid. Many people have natural immunity anyway.[reference 2] Natural recovery affords vastly superior and long lasting immunity compared to vaccination[reference 3]. The Israel data suggests that reinfection after vaccination is 13 times more likely than reinfection after natural recovery.[reference4]
[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2550-z
[3] https://www.science.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.abh1766
[4] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf
There are perfectly valid reasons to not want the vaccine. If you’re young and healthy with a low BMI and good diet then the risks of vaccination probably outweigh the risks from covid. There’s a real risk from myocarditis, Bells palsy etc from vaccination. In a recent study it was shown that injection of the vaccine lipid nano particles into a vein instead of muscle tissue produced myocarditis in a mouse model. [reference 5]. To avoid systemic administration nurses are supposed to draw the needle back for several seconds to make sure they’re not drawing blood, and hence not in a vein, however the world health organization recently expressed concern that nurses weren’t following the correct guidelines.[reference 6]
[5] https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab707/63…
[6] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1054773815575074
But you've already been contagious for a couple of days before you show symptoms? What if you do sail through it and get minimal symptoms but infect many of the other 60 people in your workplace of which 50% are over the age of 60. Still all good? The vaccination has proven effectiveness at minimising the severity of symptoms and you are less likely to get covid at all, and therefore transmit, and therefore potentially kill other people.
With latest stats out of NSW that more than 1 in 10 people with the virus are requiring hospitalisation, and the risks of myocarditis are higher from getting covid than the vaccine, I know what option I'll be taking.
Indeed. Regardless of vaccination, the Wuhan virus is going to sweep through New Zealand and everybody is going to be exposed to it sooner or later. It is unavoidable and it is inevitable. It fantastic that the leadership in Australia has finally had the guts to stand up and say it.
It needs to be made crystal clear that a personal choice is being made to encounter it with or without vaccination. As soon as the vaccination rollout has been completed and everybody given the chance to make their choice the virus needs to be left to run its course.
Those older folks that choose to face it without the vaccine should be applauded for doing their part to help reduce housing demand.
As soon as the vaccination rollout has been completed and everybody given the chance to make their choice the virus needs to be left to run its course.
That is not what will happen in NZ. We don't take that approach for measles. But measles also doesn't tend to put dozens of people in hospital, because the measles vaccines are very effective at preventing infection and transmission to begin with.
The question is to what extent will efforts to contain COVID outbreaks in NZ affect wider society. I wouldn't necessarily expect it'll mean the end of level 4 lockdowns, although hopefully they may only be quite brief and in affected population centres. Largely also depends on how COVID evolves from here.
Nothing to do with guts, they lost control of Delta and had no other choice. New Zealand is on a better path and the latest scare has pushed more people to vaccinate. The longer we can keep it out the better, you buy time for vaccinations and time for better vaccines to be developed. Australians are a bunch of Yahoos, they now have to live with Delta in the community.
Yeah I don't disagree that buying some time will be useful given the massive lag with our vaccination programme.
There is, however, in the long run, no choice for New Zealand either. The indian variant is going to come back again and again and again and we cannot "live in a cave" forever and do these ridiculous lockdowns indefinitely.
Ardern should grow a pair and say so like her Australian counterpart.
That is simply not true. There are healthy people getting really sick and dying. There are also long lasting effects from getting COVID. It is true that the vaccine doesn’t always stop you getting Covid-19 but it does reduce the chance and if you do get it, you will be less likely to get really sick. 1 person has died from possibly getting the vaccine in New Zealand and over 1 million doses have been given. Over 20 people have died from COVID-19 out of a few thousand cases. It is also very likely that the person who died from the vaccine would have died from COVID-19 if they got it.
Getting vaccinated protects nobody but yourself.
Citation needed.
The widely propagated nonsense that getting yourself vaccinated protects other people has no factual or scientific basis.
Citation needed.
If you get sick then don’t go to work! That’s how you protect other people.
Citation needed. That's how you protect other people at your work. Assuming you weren't at work when you were infectious but pre-symptomatic.
If you’ve already had covid or you’re young and healthy then you’ve got virtually no risk from covid.
Citation needed. "virtually no risk" is not the same as no risk. Many people under the age of 40 have died from COVID. Turns out you can have a pre-existing condition that makes COVID worse for you, and for you to not be aware of this.
Also many people have described COVID as the worst week(s) of their life, and that's people who didn't go to hospital, or didn't develop long COVID.
It's notable that you provided references for your other claims, but not these ones.
@Lanthanide - Let me phrase it another way. Vaccinating yourself against covid19 protects you, and other people too.[citation nonexistent] There's no citation because there's no scientific basis for that made up idea.
The contrary might actually be true. The nasal swabs of vaccinated people who've contracted covid delta contain the same viral loads as from unvaccinated people.[reference 1] The authors suggest that vaccinated people are asymptomatic spreaders, but a lot of reputable epidemiologists are skeptical of asymptomatic spread. In any case the vaccine efficacy from Israel delta has dropped to around 40% now, so if it barely protects the individual how can it protect their close contacts.
Here's a bigger concern though, There is a danger in having an entire population equipped with the same immunity, the same antibodies programmed to recognise the same epitopes, or viral protein signatures. If we ever get vaccine enhanced disease,[reference 2] then anyone who had a first exposure to spike through vaccination might be in trouble. There's a nice review article on viral quasispecies here where they're talking about immune bottlenecks.[reference 3] You don’t want everyone to have the same bottleneck. Otherwise you’ll get directed evolution towards more virulent subtypes.[reference 4]
[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387v4
[2] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.22.457114v1
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682215001580
I won't address all of your points, but being vaccinated indirectly protects others by reducing the risk of serious illness. One occupied ICU bed space by a critically ill COVID patient is one space that can not be occupied by another. We know that uncontrolled spread will overwhelm our ICU capacity. Many major (cancer, cardiac) surgeries require the certainty of post-operative disposal in ICU - without that certainty, many urgent surgeries will be delayed or cancelled.
Sounds like an interesting book, I've just ordered it online.
The author of this article however seems to fall into the trap right from the start with this quote:
given the evidence overwhelmingly favouring vaccination as a way of markedly reducing the threat of the Covid virus to the individual and to the wider community in which he or she lives. (I like the image that not vaccinating is like leaving your lights on in a blitz. It not only made you a better target for the bombers, but threatened your neighbours.)
Perhaps the "overwhelming evidence" is fraud, or negligence or just biased because the people doing it rely on certain outcomes for their funding?
Not even to catch them up?
And I get heartily sick to death of the use of the word 'race', as the differentiation is more cultural, and if it means Maori are more comfortable among people who understand their culture and them and share it, then it can only be for the good.
Seymour is an egg (would have very much liked to have used a far sterner word to describe him)
Well, as a non-European i disagree with you. The Eurpeans great success, especially scientific ones, is pushing more and more other cultures to accept this as a way forward. Thousands of years ago, that might have been the Egyptions, Mesopotimians the Greeks, the Romans, The Persians, the Arabs, etc etc at various point of time who where most successful thus forcing others to copy them to progress.
Humans learn to use most effective ways that makes their lives longer, more secure, easier etc. There is not point in trying to paint less successful ways of lives as equal to the more successful ways.
Why? The more people that get vaccinated the better.
Because this is a special accommodation being afforded to a specific group of people who have proven difficulty in accessing vaccines and lower uptake as a result.
Whether you agree that such an accommodation should exist or not, doesn't change the reality that it does exist, and is intended to be used by a particular group of people. If you aren't in that group of people being targeted, then you should not make use of this facility (unless you have genuine reason to believe you are at specific risk from COVID, and this is the most expedient and easiest way for you to get a vaccination).
How is it "virtue signalling" to ensure a segment of the population, which data shows has a lower vaccine uptake, can more easily get vaccinated?
I would have thought that was the opposite of virtue signalling, you know, actually identifying a problem and doing something about it, rather than just talking about it.
Seymour did well. The setup was for people who were challenged by making appointments. Which is a good approach. The stupid idea is that's all maori and only maori who don't use appointment (and equally stupid is the idea that non maori love appointment systems.
The reality is that we are more the same than different. Some of us like appointments and some don't.
The racist hoax is trying to sort us into two distinct boxes.
Mr Easton treads around the issue somewhat. Eggshells. I would remind readers that one ‘expert’ who enthusiastically jumped on the band wagon to attack the academics who raised concerns about mātauranga Māori being regarded as science was one much quoted Covid celebrity, New Zealander of the Year Siouxsie Wiles. As we walk on eggshells these days, I will not add a subjective comment.
A quick "cure". After a suitable time period, say end of dec21, all those in the designated age or age groups who aren't vaccinated don't have the benefit of the health system should they succumb to Covid and require hospitalisation.
It also appears we have another watcher. Initially Megan Woods. Watching the hydro lake levels then the price.
Now Bloomfield on a booster shot.
Fortunate that we have watchers looking after us.
Trump is the cheerleader for science denial,(and pseudoscience promotion), got him a lot of votes and still will.
Only in America?
Read yesterday that an American hospital is becoming overwhelmed by Ivermectin overdoses.. so they have not got room for the (unvaccinated) Covid victims.. who are clogging up beds needed for gunshot victims.
Science is losing to loud mouthed populism.
What is happening in the information space these days is unbelievably astounding.
Shame you didn't come across articles quoting the management of the mentioned hospital confirming that the person making those claims was false and they didn't have any cases of ivermectin OD. That was simply a hit piece from Rolling Stone picked up by talking heads from MSNBC, CNN and the like.
You are missing the point, which is that science denial leads to catastrophe, and it was BBC news for what it's worth, but I see drilling down you have a point there .
Rolling Stone which posted the original article has now published an update:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/rolling-stone-forced-issue-update-after-v…
https://www.nwahomepage.com/news/around-the-region/oklahoma-hospitals-r…
I guess the reluctance in vaccination hesitatancy lies in the indeniable conflict of interest of those who sell drugs to validate their products with 'science'
I would argue that science is actually an evolving 'science' made up of the popularly accepted opinions of the time. There is no 100% foolproof way to prove that their findings are
a) True
b) Beneficial
c) Aren't found to be invalid and possibly even damaging in the future?
There are numerous examples of where this has been found to be the case, and it's easy to get sucked into 'crowd thinking' such as the once popular belief the world was flat, to the belief that smoking was not bad, to 'shock treatment' i.e. electrocution actually helps those with mental disorders... the list goes on and on....
I say let those who do not want to be a guinea pig make their choice for them, and take the risk either way...
Their within their bill of rights to refuse any medical treatment without consent
This appears to be suggesting that a belief in mātauranga Māori is driving vaccination scepticism in Māori. I am not sure that is what you meant Brian?
Vaccine reluctance is prevalent across disenfranchised and distrustful populations across the world - particularly those that get most of their news and facts from social media, which amplifies misinformation to get clicks to sell advertising.
I suspect that pasifika vaccination rates are higher because of a greater trust in health providers, vocal / supportive community leaders, and the very visible real world impact of covid on pasifika communities in Auckland (and in Fiji etc).
Johnathan Cook just wrote a blog on proposed child vaccines (x Covid) in UK and how the experts are suddenly reluctant to "follow the science". https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2021-09-04/vaccine-children-science/
Seems to me the greater issue is not with science as a framework or the results of scientific study, it is more about how science is so often reported in a really irresponsible way, ie turned into tabloid clickbait. You could argue that this is partly the fault of scientists who are not very good at communicating science in terms that most can really understand.. so in a way they've abdicated that responsibility to journalists and 'content creators' who spend all their energy framing untested 'studies' as science, eg "Study now shows eating 8 kilos of chocolate per week actually reduces risk of heart disease..". you could also argue that this is why those rare individuals who are able to bridge the gap between technical and layman are so important, the Michelle Dickinsons, Neil Degrasse Tysons, David Attenboroughs...
neeko, for a light-hearted look at it (science in the media), see John Oliver;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw&t=48s
Sept 2021:
Approx 4.5 million people have died from covid 19 / Delta to date.
Yes it is serious and real. It does indeed kill people of all demographics - but not all demographics equally.
For some perspective:
4.5 million out of 7 billion = 0.064%
Of those, we might assume ~78% are over the age of 65. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-from-covid-…)
Obviously older age groups are at increased risk. But this 78% figure will be an underestimate of the proportional risk (by age), since by this stage a larger proportion of older people will have been vaccinated than younger people. But lets stick conservatively with 78%.
100% - 78% = 22 %
0.064% * 22% = 0.014% of the worlds population of people under the age of 65 have to date died of Covid / Delta (it would approximately seem).
(Even the tiniest figure is too high.)
A fundamental principle of vaccine design is to asses the risk:benefit ratio by age group. This is crucially important, but (crucially and terribly, yet perhaps understandably) has been overlooked by the vaccine producer’s in the rush to deliver the vaccines, and is also currently overlooked by the current narrative, media and government. (Hardly ever do I hear the latest numbers provided in the context of age brackets).
Without question, the vaccine(s) have been rushed through. There can be no reasonable way, at this point, of confidently knowing the long-term risks. Yet we do know that the vaccine(s) are at least partially effective at mitigating the seriousness of symptoms, and (therefore) reducing chances of hospitalisation and death.
Since the risk of death from Covid / Delta is (much) greater in older people, and since further life expectancy is (of course) lesser anyway than in younger people - the risk:benefit ratio of the vaccine is much more attractive to an older person than for a younger person. Younger people have higher natural immunity, and (as we progress downwards through the age brackets) many more potential life-events come into scope of unknown impact by the rushed vaccine(s) possible long-term effects.
Therefore the net effect of mandating vaccines for all is to load risk on the young for the benefit of the old.
An adult might quite reasonably choose to take the vaccine to protect oneself.
Another adult might quite reasonably consider the risk:benefit ratio to their own person too high to accept.
At the moment, I certainly think the risk:benefit ratio to very much not favour vaccinating children.
Since the science has not been done and no actual quantification of the risk:benefit ratio per age bracket exists, and since both media and government are equally also seemingly uninformed and unhelpful in this respect, we (the public) must make these judgements for ourselves.
On vaccination discrimination (vaccine passports):
It’s not widely appreciated that a staple of vaccine practice is that vaccines must not be coerced upon an individual. What part of government sanctioned vaccine-passports to participate in society is not coercion? As if that weren’t enough, however:
Whilst shown to be somewhat effective at mitigating symptoms, the vaccine(s) are not yet proven to be effective at reducing spread of Delta.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02054-z
The loud but incorrect argument, then, that businesses become more attractive to customers if they can say 100% of staff are vaccinated, is (currently at least) discredited.
Apparently possibly ignorant of this, governments and businesses (for now) continue to push for vaccine discrimination / passports.
And in so doing, are creating for themselves points of significant legal exposure. There could in the future be significant legal compensations required for those adversely effected by such discrimination. Ignorance is not bliss, and in this context might even seem wilful! Very basic due-diligence of the scope of vaccine effectiveness would be a treatment for such ignorance. I think courts are likely to agree.
Those discriminated against would do very well to keep very good records at this time.
And employers would be well advised to hold-off on jumping on that bandwagon.
This makes for very interesting viewing:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ukx8L3lh5CA7/?fbclid=IwAR11BffG4RYx9s0CZ…
It simply states the statistical chance of dying from COVID within a specific population… that’s all… it tells you about its lethality given the sample relative to the population characteristics.
long term health effects… give over! The scientific community is still trying to play catch-up
No conclusions were drawn from the starting comments on numbers.
There were just a perspective at a point in time. (Point taken, however, that numbers with respect to exposure would carry more meaning - albeit probably impossible to reliably acquire).
Except that (what is already very widely accepted) that older people are very much more susceptible than younger people.
The rest of my discussion (which are my most pertinent thoughts) remains completely valid, therefore.
If you disagree with the remainder of what I say - please speak up! I genuinely can't connect the dots between the loading of risk on the young for the benefit of the old, and the (as of yet) unproven capability of a vaccine to mitigate spread (of Delta) with mandatory vaccination (in some places) and expectation of vaccine passports / workplace etc discrimination.
Vaccine passport would seem to be of delusional benefit. To my way of thinking. False confidence if a customer entering a store claiming to be 100% vaccinated... A clutching at straws by society in a difficult situation.
It really annoys me, actually, that media discussion (even supposedly relaying the words of 'scientists') so often implicitly conveys that vaccines prevent spread. (Therein lies a reason for distrust the article refers to!) If it was proven - fine! But show me where it is scientifically proven - please! Refute the link I provided. Without this proven - we are stacking society with policies and restrictions that will be of possibly needless trouble.
I do think that while there is hope, NZ (in its unique situation) should attempt to stamp it out via lock-down. But we can expect to remain closed for a very long time, yet.
Taking the vaccine is not mandatory and therefore requires a choice to be made. Some people don't insure their cars or houses. Some people choose to live very unhealthy lifestyles and end up with kidney failure. If an older person with comorbidities decides against it, then they are foolish. If a 25 year old marathon runner decides against it, then fair enough. Please don't forget this point regarding protecting others in the community. Israel opened its borders so it's vaccinated people could travel abroad. Unfortunately, Delta is pretty good at bypassing the Pfizer vaccine and those people returned home loaded with SARS-CoV-2. The case numbers there today are around 8000 per day. The vaccine protects against hospitalisation and death. Go and identify the most vulnerable people and Pfizer them. We could have been opened many months ago by targeting the real people at risk.
The reason for the distrust is well earnt as the 'scientists' have made statements that have broken their social contract with the people they are applying the science to.
And the social contract was, 'believe us and do as we say (get vaccinated and lockdown costs) and you will be protected from catching the virus and developing and dying from the disease.'
So it turns out,
1) many people will still catch the virus even after being vaccinated.
2) You still can infect others.
3) Some of the vaccinated will then go on to get ill,
4) And a very very small subset will die.
5) The vaccine wears off,
6) Many businesses are going bust and people losing jobs regardless.
All of these have broken the original pitched social contract.
None of these reasons are reasons for not getting vaccinated (if you were going to catch it anyway), it's just a different risk profile than catching it by not being vaccinated.
Also, the initial reason for the elimination strategy was flawed, it gave the impression that the goal of elimination was separate from the need to get vaccinated, and this is quite obvious with the no rush to get the population vaccinated.
After all, if the disease has been eliminated and the danger has passed, then there is no need to be vaccinated and take on any risk.
Also, the research shows that like declining effectiveness if antibiotics are overused, so does the effectiveness of vaccines reduce over time and over repeat doses.
The same motivators that govern all human behavior are at play here, including the likes of the Easton, who are surprised at people's reactions.
Maori science is more likely to be observation that certain events usually lead to certain results, nothing wrong with that especially if repitition demonstrates correlation. In the same vein the reduction of deaths from covid in Utta Pradesh India following the widespread distribution of Ivermectin and corroboration in Africa were Ivermectin was widely used to prevent River Blindness and little Covid infections is sufficient evidence to at least raise the question of its effectiveness against Covid. Such discussion has been shut down by Politicans/Media & Big Pharma??? The creator of the Spike protein Robert Maloney of the Salk institute ( Creator of the successful Polio Vaccine) is on record as stating it is being used for a purpose it was not designed for. The ex Chief scientist to Pfizer has raised serious questions on the Pfizer injection and the current Pfizer CEO will not be vaccinated with his own company product and is not recommending its use on his staff.The Indian Bar Association has issued proceeding against officials under the Nuremberg code as has a UK Lawyer by issuing a liability claim, not sure but I assume under the lack of informed consent aspect, this lawyer with past Military experience and a previous management consultant to Pfizer raise some questionabilty of the mRNA products use in Covid prevention. Like the stench of dead vermin the smell alerts one to a source of the stink.
Agreed. But the virus response was a political sell on a place your bets basis, not a scientific hypothesis. There was never any projected certainty as to outcomes and there still isn’t. For those of us lucky enough to live in NZ our ability to make informed choice is limited as are the options. Seek to get vaccinated or not. Follow level guidelines or not. Unfortunately willingness to take responsibility for the outcome of our choices is not universal or always encouraged.
Having vaccine hesitant (and that's putting it kindly) family members, and having talked to them about their perspectives in great detail, one thing is painfully obvious: in this 'information' rich society that we currently live in, not everybody has the skills to analyze the quality of information that they are confronted with in order to determine whether it is reliable or comes from a credible source.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.