I think it's clearly a case of lack of trust for our public health officials at all levels. The conflicting "guidance" issued by CDC and Fauci, Redfield, Zients, Wilenski, the former Surgeon General (a black man) etc. has been destructive of confidence and not just in the black community.
The media and politicians like Biden and Harris implying that we can't trust vaccines that "Trump approved" are also big time culprits.
Arguing, as Pielke does, that this is a social justice issue is really bogus.
My wife and I are both 74, we got both of our Pfizer shots last month and we now are out on the road traveling cross country visiting family and friends and doing the stuff we haven't been able to do for a year now. If I believed the CDC and the Biden/Fauci administration I'd still be at home "sheltering". But you see I understand science and I have a well tuned BS detector honed on the climate change debates.
Roger has done some excellent work on climate change. Maybe he should stick to what he knows.
To quote you: "My wife and I are both 74, we got both of our Pfizer shots last month and we now are out on the road traveling cross country visiting family and friends and doing the stuff we haven't been able to do for a year now. If I believed the CDC and the Biden/Fauci administration I'd still be at home "sheltering". The Biden/Fauci administration has been encouraging people to be vaccinated, as you are. How does it follow they want you to be at home sheltering?
Great question.. how should the scientific enterprise operate if it were designed for the public to ultimately trust its products? How would affected communities be involved in design and interpretation of research? Which QA/QC protocols would be required of policy-relevant studies. I think it requires re-imagining the structure of the whole biz.
jury is still out on what is necessary and appropriate response short-term vs long-term. hesitancy certainly arises when best practices and accountability for science are rolled back for speed in support of a narrative that may not match reality. there is debate within the scientific community not on vaccines themselves, but the application-timing and longer term risks. take this from former Gates Foundation employee Geert Vanden Bossche...
I’m in no rush to get any of the ‘rona vaccines and unless forced to I may never do so. I’m not anti-vax by any stretch. I just recall thalidomide, and recognize we’re dealing in a whole new form or mRNA work here. I’d rather watch and see how this looks a year from now.
As to “trust”, well, yeah, hard to trust our “institutions” when they hide potential non-vax pharma (cheap), and the CDC comes out with a paper now that says masks were/are basically worthless, all the while the esteemed Dr. Fauci keeps making unbased prognostications and outright lies at times.
I took this directly FROM the article YOU referenced:
" Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation. Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with increases in county-level case and death growth rates within 41–80 days after reopening. State mask mandates and prohibiting on-premises dining at restaurants help limit potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2, reducing community transmission of COVID-19 "Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 (5–8). Mask mandates are associated with reduc-tions in COVID-19 case and hospitalization growth rates (6,7), whereas reopening on-premises dining at restaurants, a known risk factor associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (2), is associated with increased COVID-19 cases and deaths, particularly in the absence of mask mandates"
How did you get out of this that masks are basically worthless?? Did you not read the discussion portion or did you pick and choose what you wanted to spew out your BS? READ THE DISCUSSION SECTION WHERE I TOOK THIS FROM. before writing such an ignorant reply.
“ During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. coun- ties. Mask mandates were associated with a ➡️0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). Daily case and death growth rates before implementa- tion of mask mandates were not statistically different ⬅️from the reference period.”
Yes, this is saying that state-level mandates were not statistically significantly related to decreases in COVID cases, but county level mandates did show decreases in COVID cases, and further, when those were lifted, cases increased again.
I received both my vaccines in January and I am 95% protected now and if you want to stay without them that is your right in a free country. However don’t complain when you get sick. In addition when I look at the study I don’t look at the results in isolation of the discussion. In fact the discussion portion is very important to a study because it discusses the results in greater detail and again you can choose to pick and pull out what you want but it doesn’t change the fact that the discussion portion mentions what it does. Good luck with not taking the vaccine and I hope you remain healthy
Dr. James, Yes, it is important to read the study in total (I just did) but we both know the "discussion" portion of a paper can often be politicized. DK's sentence seems pertinent.
Thalidomide really is not relevant here. It is a valuable treatment for certain types of cancer and aspects of leprosy. It was in the early days of its availability prescribed for pregnant women, without any prior tests to determine that it was safe for them.
The current vaccines have been tested successfully on large and highly varied populations, but there may well be a few exceptions where the number of persons is not large enough yet..
I think it's clearly a case of lack of trust for our public health officials at all levels. The conflicting "guidance" issued by CDC and Fauci, Redfield, Zients, Wilenski, the former Surgeon General (a black man) etc. has been destructive of confidence and not just in the black community.
The media and politicians like Biden and Harris implying that we can't trust vaccines that "Trump approved" are also big time culprits.
Arguing, as Pielke does, that this is a social justice issue is really bogus.
My wife and I are both 74, we got both of our Pfizer shots last month and we now are out on the road traveling cross country visiting family and friends and doing the stuff we haven't been able to do for a year now. If I believed the CDC and the Biden/Fauci administration I'd still be at home "sheltering". But you see I understand science and I have a well tuned BS detector honed on the climate change debates.
Roger has done some excellent work on climate change. Maybe he should stick to what he knows.
To quote you: "My wife and I are both 74, we got both of our Pfizer shots last month and we now are out on the road traveling cross country visiting family and friends and doing the stuff we haven't been able to do for a year now. If I believed the CDC and the Biden/Fauci administration I'd still be at home "sheltering". The Biden/Fauci administration has been encouraging people to be vaccinated, as you are. How does it follow they want you to be at home sheltering?
Great question.. how should the scientific enterprise operate if it were designed for the public to ultimately trust its products? How would affected communities be involved in design and interpretation of research? Which QA/QC protocols would be required of policy-relevant studies. I think it requires re-imagining the structure of the whole biz.
jury is still out on what is necessary and appropriate response short-term vs long-term. hesitancy certainly arises when best practices and accountability for science are rolled back for speed in support of a narrative that may not match reality. there is debate within the scientific community not on vaccines themselves, but the application-timing and longer term risks. take this from former Gates Foundation employee Geert Vanden Bossche...
https://youtu.be/N9PdZn_Yd5w
I’m in no rush to get any of the ‘rona vaccines and unless forced to I may never do so. I’m not anti-vax by any stretch. I just recall thalidomide, and recognize we’re dealing in a whole new form or mRNA work here. I’d rather watch and see how this looks a year from now.
As to “trust”, well, yeah, hard to trust our “institutions” when they hide potential non-vax pharma (cheap), and the CDC comes out with a paper now that says masks were/are basically worthless, all the while the esteemed Dr. Fauci keeps making unbased prognostications and outright lies at times.
CDC paper here: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/pdfs/mm7010e3-H.pdf
I took this directly FROM the article YOU referenced:
" Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation. Allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with increases in county-level case and death growth rates within 41–80 days after reopening. State mask mandates and prohibiting on-premises dining at restaurants help limit potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2, reducing community transmission of COVID-19 "Studies have confirmed the effectiveness of community mitigation measures in reducing the prevalence of COVID-19 (5–8). Mask mandates are associated with reduc-tions in COVID-19 case and hospitalization growth rates (6,7), whereas reopening on-premises dining at restaurants, a known risk factor associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (2), is associated with increased COVID-19 cases and deaths, particularly in the absence of mask mandates"
How did you get out of this that masks are basically worthless?? Did you not read the discussion portion or did you pick and choose what you wanted to spew out your BS? READ THE DISCUSSION SECTION WHERE I TOOK THIS FROM. before writing such an ignorant reply.
“ During March 1–December 31, 2020, state-issued mask mandates applied in 2,313 (73.6%) of the 3,142 U.S. coun- ties. Mask mandates were associated with a ➡️0.5 percentage point decrease (p = 0.02) in daily COVID-19 case growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.1, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all) (Table 1) (Figure). Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all). Daily case and death growth rates before implementa- tion of mask mandates were not statistically different ⬅️from the reference period.”
Ahem....
Yes, this is saying that state-level mandates were not statistically significantly related to decreases in COVID cases, but county level mandates did show decreases in COVID cases, and further, when those were lifted, cases increased again.
I received both my vaccines in January and I am 95% protected now and if you want to stay without them that is your right in a free country. However don’t complain when you get sick. In addition when I look at the study I don’t look at the results in isolation of the discussion. In fact the discussion portion is very important to a study because it discusses the results in greater detail and again you can choose to pick and pull out what you want but it doesn’t change the fact that the discussion portion mentions what it does. Good luck with not taking the vaccine and I hope you remain healthy
Dr. James, Yes, it is important to read the study in total (I just did) but we both know the "discussion" portion of a paper can often be politicized. DK's sentence seems pertinent.
Thalidomide really is not relevant here. It is a valuable treatment for certain types of cancer and aspects of leprosy. It was in the early days of its availability prescribed for pregnant women, without any prior tests to determine that it was safe for them.
The current vaccines have been tested successfully on large and highly varied populations, but there may well be a few exceptions where the number of persons is not large enough yet..