A more objective, reasoned discussion about Covid vaccine and policy effectiveness
- By BradStevens
- The Water Cooler
- 5 Replies
This is an interesting, kinda non-political (contra pt. 8 below) review of what we now know re COVID vaccine and policy efficacy from a paper recently published:
https://www.econtalk.org/the-good-t...d-vaccine-with-vinay-prasad/#audio-highlights. (this has a transcript if you don't like or want to listen to it)
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
A brief summary from the beginning of the podcast:
1. The COVID-19 vaccine has been a miraculous, life-saving advance, offering staggering efficacy in adults, and was developed with astonishing speed. The vaccine saved lives in the older cohort. The vaccine did not stop the spread of COVID-19, obviously, but it did reduce the severity of the disease in the older cohort that was dying from Covid.
2. The vaccine did not prevent transmission well. And in the randomized control trials that led to vaccine approval, we could have explicitly tested whether or not the vaccine slowed or halted transmission. We did not do so. Why is an interesting question that is discussed.
3. We made the mistake of extrapolating our vaccine advice to older, unvaccinated cohort to people who had already had and recovered from COVID-19, an extrapolation that lacked evidence.
4. We pushed vaccines in younger and younger populations, where the risk and benefit balance were more tenuous and uncertain. The evidence is weak that perpetual vaccination in children (esp. those who have had Covid-19) is effective or worthwhile. Govts. were reluctant to admit, investigate, and act upon harms that were being discovered w/r/t the vaccine in some age cohorts. (Israeli study in particular showed the risk of myocarditis in young men 16-22 far exceeded potential benefit of vaccine). Because of this, the vaccine did more harm than good among certain cohorts in the short term. In the long term, school closures were a policy blunder, that when you look at all-cause mortality into the future and lost-life-years of the entire population, did much more harm than good. (You can also probably tack on the trillions the world spent and continues to spend recovering from the economic shut downs that will be passed onto the young as another cost/harm to them).
5. The timing of the initial vaccine approval was probably driven by politics. Trump wanted it before the election to crow about it, but scientists were publicly stating during the 2020 election that the vaccine might not be effective, might do more harm than good, etc. and then did an about-face after Biden was in office in terms of public messaging and at that point oversold it. (obviously the most controversial part of this discussion/paper).
No one here is an epidemiologist, so it's tough to judge Prasad's accuracy. The link to the pod already has some discussion, with arguing back and forth about his reasoning. But I found this relatively easy to follow as a layman. I think the most important take away for everyone here: evaluating the vaccine and our policy responses is complicated and to do so well, you have to admit uncertainty--even now (hi there, scientific method!)--and be nuanced in your analysis.
Aside: It's too bad we don't have one, unified COVID thread, one unified Trump sucks thread, and one unified Biden sucks thread. Messages and topics would be much easier to navigate.
Regarding this one, @TheOriginalHappyGoat or @UncleMark , do you think it worth trying out this thread as one of those where we don't allow name calling, overt political dumbassery, etc. to invade?
https://www.econtalk.org/the-good-t...d-vaccine-with-vinay-prasad/#audio-highlights. (this has a transcript if you don't like or want to listen to it)
COVID-19 vaccines: history of the pandemic's great scientific success and flawed policy implementation - PubMed
The COVID-19 vaccine has been a miraculous, life-saving advance, offering staggering efficacy in adults, and was developed with astonishing speed. The time from sequencing the virus to authorizing the first COVID-19 vaccine was so brisk even the optimists appear close-minded. Yet...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
A brief summary from the beginning of the podcast:
1. The COVID-19 vaccine has been a miraculous, life-saving advance, offering staggering efficacy in adults, and was developed with astonishing speed. The vaccine saved lives in the older cohort. The vaccine did not stop the spread of COVID-19, obviously, but it did reduce the severity of the disease in the older cohort that was dying from Covid.
2. The vaccine did not prevent transmission well. And in the randomized control trials that led to vaccine approval, we could have explicitly tested whether or not the vaccine slowed or halted transmission. We did not do so. Why is an interesting question that is discussed.
3. We made the mistake of extrapolating our vaccine advice to older, unvaccinated cohort to people who had already had and recovered from COVID-19, an extrapolation that lacked evidence.
4. We pushed vaccines in younger and younger populations, where the risk and benefit balance were more tenuous and uncertain. The evidence is weak that perpetual vaccination in children (esp. those who have had Covid-19) is effective or worthwhile. Govts. were reluctant to admit, investigate, and act upon harms that were being discovered w/r/t the vaccine in some age cohorts. (Israeli study in particular showed the risk of myocarditis in young men 16-22 far exceeded potential benefit of vaccine). Because of this, the vaccine did more harm than good among certain cohorts in the short term. In the long term, school closures were a policy blunder, that when you look at all-cause mortality into the future and lost-life-years of the entire population, did much more harm than good. (You can also probably tack on the trillions the world spent and continues to spend recovering from the economic shut downs that will be passed onto the young as another cost/harm to them).
5. The timing of the initial vaccine approval was probably driven by politics. Trump wanted it before the election to crow about it, but scientists were publicly stating during the 2020 election that the vaccine might not be effective, might do more harm than good, etc. and then did an about-face after Biden was in office in terms of public messaging and at that point oversold it. (obviously the most controversial part of this discussion/paper).
No one here is an epidemiologist, so it's tough to judge Prasad's accuracy. The link to the pod already has some discussion, with arguing back and forth about his reasoning. But I found this relatively easy to follow as a layman. I think the most important take away for everyone here: evaluating the vaccine and our policy responses is complicated and to do so well, you have to admit uncertainty--even now (hi there, scientific method!)--and be nuanced in your analysis.
Aside: It's too bad we don't have one, unified COVID thread, one unified Trump sucks thread, and one unified Biden sucks thread. Messages and topics would be much easier to navigate.
Regarding this one, @TheOriginalHappyGoat or @UncleMark , do you think it worth trying out this thread as one of those where we don't allow name calling, overt political dumbassery, etc. to invade?
Consumer sentiment more negative today than in 2008 financial crisis
- By NPT
- The Water Cooler
- 128 Replies
I know prices have gone up a lot but my feeling today sure isn't more negative than in 2008. I think part of that is social media. I am a lot more negative today about our government than I was in 2008 whether it be Biden or Trump as president.
www.kiplinger.com
Do You Feel More Negative These Days? Blame the Algorithm
Consumer sentiment is more negative today than it was during the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. Could the difference be the rise of social media’s influence?
www.kiplinger.com
Indiana's coaching staff made IU a 'no brainer' for Justice Ellison
- By ZachBrowning
- Premium IU Football Forum
- 2 Replies
TheHoosier - Indiana's coaching staff made IU a 'no brainer' for Justice Ellison
Justice Ellison's decision to close out his college career at Indiana was an easy choice for the tailback.
indiana.rivals.com
RIP Bill Walton
- By Hoopsdoc1978
- The Water Cooler
- 21 Replies
Dead of cancer at 71.
www.espn.com
Obligatory f**k cancer.
Hall of Famer Bill Walton, 71, dies of cancer
Bill Walton, who won two NCAA titles with UCLA and two NBA championships during a Hall of Fame career, died Monday at age 71 after a prolonged battle with cancer.
Obligatory f**k cancer.
RIP Bill Walton
- By NWfor3
- TheHoosier.com IU Hoop Forum
- 0 Replies
Hall of Famer Bill Walton, 71, dies of cancer
Bill Walton, who won two NCAA titles with UCLA and two NBA championships during a Hall of Fame career, died Monday at age 71 after a prolonged battle with cancer.
Why hasn’t anyone posted about Rock Island?
- By CO. Hoosier
- The Water Cooler
- 2 Replies
Rock island has turned out to be one of the great tourist attractions of Northwest Indiana. Written up and shown on media, thousands of followers on social media, this is truly an outstanding place. Rock Island has gained significant recognition without one dime of federal, state, or local funds. No government committees, no studies, no exercises in DEI, just old fashioned community effort.
One visitor to the island remarked: “must-see . . .healed my family and cured my depression."
Another noted “It is truly a masterpiece and even an emotional experience. I’ve never had such feelings of excitement. It is truly a breathtaking structure. With the Indiana Dunes being named a National Park in recent years, I believe it would only be fair to name Rock Island a state park for the time being with National Park in its near future.”
In these days of seemingly endless conflict, turmoil, and hate, a visit to Rock Island would certainly be a worthwhile calming experience.
@mcmurtry66: you might want to look into securing the parking, Tshirt and popcorn concessions.
www.nwitimes.com
One visitor to the island remarked: “must-see . . .healed my family and cured my depression."
Another noted “It is truly a masterpiece and even an emotional experience. I’ve never had such feelings of excitement. It is truly a breathtaking structure. With the Indiana Dunes being named a National Park in recent years, I believe it would only be fair to name Rock Island a state park for the time being with National Park in its near future.”
In these days of seemingly endless conflict, turmoil, and hate, a visit to Rock Island would certainly be a worthwhile calming experience.
@mcmurtry66: you might want to look into securing the parking, Tshirt and popcorn concessions.
Long a hazard to cars, Rock Island has become the talk of Valparaiso
Joking online reviews claim Valparaiso's Rock Island, a traffic island with rocks cars often hit, is a "must-see" that "healed my family and cured my depression" and is "something everyone