Thanks for your comment. I think you read this post with the framing of bivalent boosters. And perhaps some is contributing to that, but I was thinking more of those who never got the vaccine primary series or never one booster.
To answer your question, we actually have data on why people aren't getting the bivalent... they don't know ab…
Thanks for your comment. I think you read this post with the framing of bivalent boosters. And perhaps some is contributing to that, but I was thinking more of those who never got the vaccine primary series or never one booster.
To answer your question, we actually have data on why people aren't getting the bivalent... they don't know about it or because they can't get access to it. This is true across every age group. There was a survey published on this last Friday, that I was going to include in a research round-up.
PS: if you are doing a research roundup soon, may I respectfully request that you help us understand the implications of the recent Cleveland Clinic study? As far as I know, it’s one of the few studies we have that uses recent data. It has not been peer-reviewed yet it’s based on a very large sample size.
The study shows a correlation (not to be confused with causation) between number of vaccine shots and likelihood of catching covid: the more boosted, the more likely to get covid. My best guess is the true explanation has something to do with behavior and/or natural immunity - that once people drop Covid precautions, they are more apt to catch Covid, especially if they’ve never had it before. I saw this again and again with friends catching covid within weeks of getting the bivalent.
As a person who is interested in science and the truth, can we conclude from this study that the ability of the vaccines to prevent infection has been overstated, especially in the early days when more people took greater precautions?
In addition to mis/dis-information, there is another type of un-truth: ignoring or discrediting valid studies that go against the narrative. My worry is our nation’s policy makers fall in to this category. They seem more fixated on using old data to prove old policy was justified instead of using new data to test the narrative and chart the future.
Here’s the link to the Cleveland Clinic study, you might need to press “full text” to see both charts:
"...valid studies that go against the narrative." This is a concern I have which causes me to have less faith in CDC recommendations, for example. It seems that these non-conforming studies aren't just faint outliers. Some make "Science" their god. But science can get it wrong. How many times have I read, "Well, we NOW know..." And the damage is done.
Thank you for clarifying that mis/dis-information contributed to people never getting their primary series and/or booster. I don’t think there is anything that can be said or done to convince this group to get vaccinated. Even vaccine mandates didn’t help, if anything they probably backfired and sowed the seeds of suspicion for mainstay vaccines like MMR.
So if mis/dis-information has nothing to do with 85% of Americans saying “no thanks” to the bivalent booster, with all due respect, I’m not sure what the applicability of your post is - how does it inform today and the future?
I thought I made a pretty good case why disinformation is bad in the post above, including the ramifications for other public health problems and other vaccines
Thanks for your comment. I think you read this post with the framing of bivalent boosters. And perhaps some is contributing to that, but I was thinking more of those who never got the vaccine primary series or never one booster.
To answer your question, we actually have data on why people aren't getting the bivalent... they don't know about it or because they can't get access to it. This is true across every age group. There was a survey published on this last Friday, that I was going to include in a research round-up.
PS: if you are doing a research roundup soon, may I respectfully request that you help us understand the implications of the recent Cleveland Clinic study? As far as I know, it’s one of the few studies we have that uses recent data. It has not been peer-reviewed yet it’s based on a very large sample size.
The study shows a correlation (not to be confused with causation) between number of vaccine shots and likelihood of catching covid: the more boosted, the more likely to get covid. My best guess is the true explanation has something to do with behavior and/or natural immunity - that once people drop Covid precautions, they are more apt to catch Covid, especially if they’ve never had it before. I saw this again and again with friends catching covid within weeks of getting the bivalent.
As a person who is interested in science and the truth, can we conclude from this study that the ability of the vaccines to prevent infection has been overstated, especially in the early days when more people took greater precautions?
In addition to mis/dis-information, there is another type of un-truth: ignoring or discrediting valid studies that go against the narrative. My worry is our nation’s policy makers fall in to this category. They seem more fixated on using old data to prove old policy was justified instead of using new data to test the narrative and chart the future.
Here’s the link to the Cleveland Clinic study, you might need to press “full text” to see both charts:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1
"...valid studies that go against the narrative." This is a concern I have which causes me to have less faith in CDC recommendations, for example. It seems that these non-conforming studies aren't just faint outliers. Some make "Science" their god. But science can get it wrong. How many times have I read, "Well, we NOW know..." And the damage is done.
Thank you for clarifying that mis/dis-information contributed to people never getting their primary series and/or booster. I don’t think there is anything that can be said or done to convince this group to get vaccinated. Even vaccine mandates didn’t help, if anything they probably backfired and sowed the seeds of suspicion for mainstay vaccines like MMR.
So if mis/dis-information has nothing to do with 85% of Americans saying “no thanks” to the bivalent booster, with all due respect, I’m not sure what the applicability of your post is - how does it inform today and the future?
I thought I made a pretty good case why disinformation is bad in the post above, including the ramifications for other public health problems and other vaccines
It was also useful to have all that information in one place.
Yes, you did! Thank you!
The article isn't just about the bivalent vaccine. I thought that would have been obvious from reading it.