An interesting video discussing the effectiveness of vaccines and natural immunity over time. There are sources (such as Nature) in the youtube link. Please feel free to comment on any questions,...
An interesting video discussing the effectiveness of vaccines and natural immunity over time. There are sources (such as Nature) in the youtube link.
Please feel free to comment on any questions, inconsistencies or mistakes you find. Mine are:
Is getting an unvaccinated Covid infection every 2 years as severe as being periodically vaccinated
Is there a tradeoff based on age: if under a certain age you should not get the vaccine to build your immune system, while older you should?
What requirements should be for health professionals treating immune compromised patients?
I was apprehensive about this video going into it, given all the comments under it. It's about 90% anti-vaxxers proudly proclaiming they are unvaccinated, survived COVID with no major issues, and...
I was apprehensive about this video going into it, given all the comments under it. It's about 90% anti-vaxxers proudly proclaiming they are unvaccinated, survived COVID with no major issues, and sharing anecdotes about the health issues that were allegedly developed by the people they know who were vaccinated.
And after watching the first half of the video I am not feeling any better about it either. I mean, FFS, he starts off with an MS-paint graph he clearly made himself showing what he alleges is the efficacy over time of vaccinations vs "natural" immunity. I'm not a Doctor so probably wouldn't be able to understand the studies he linked to that he is supposedly getting all this information from, and so maybe my instincts are wrong here, but I can't help but feel this is very likely COVID vaccine misinformation.
Edit: He's got a bunch of other videos on his channel from earlier this year promoting Ivermectin as a treatment. IMO this guy is clearly a misinformation peddler.
Thanks for the reply. I was also pretty apprehensive going into it, however one of my biggest fears recently is the possibility that my information sources are becoming warped by group bias. My...
Thanks for the reply. I was also pretty apprehensive going into it, however one of my biggest fears recently is the possibility that my information sources are becoming warped by group bias. My impression is that tildes membership is predominantly educated and trusts official sources, while my impression of the guy in the video and the audience he is talking to seems to be conspiracy theorists and those who don't trust official sources.
The conclusions he draws are an interesting thought experiment, though. If it is the case that getting Covid rather than the vaccine is as effective from an immune response point of view, then how would that affect public health policy? Where would the trade off be when the risk of someone becoming seriously ill or dying from not taking the vaccine are worth the supposed immune benefits? How would it affect 'covid certificates' for some jobs?
IMO thought experiments like that are not only pointless (since AFAIK none of us here on Tildes are public-health policy experts, epidemiologists, or virologists), but they also have the potential...
IMO thought experiments like that are not only pointless (since AFAIK none of us here on Tildes are public-health policy experts, epidemiologists, or virologists), but they also have the potential to cause very tangible harm if the discussions manage to convince anyone that there might be some truth to them or the conspiracy-theory laden sources they derive from. And frankly, I have absolutely no interest in taking part in such a discussion for exactly those reasons, and the fact that this topic was removed suggests it isn't just me who feels that way.
Here's a better thought experiment for you, but an ethical one instead. How many people do you think this charlatan DrBeen has gotten killed, or caused long-term (or even permanent) physical injury to, by convincing them to trust their "natural" immunity instead of getting vaccinated, and if infected to take Ivermectin rather than seek proper medical treatment? And how much of that culpability is shared by those who share his videos, help spread his ideas (even as mere "thought experiments), and thus increase his audience, as you have just done?
one of my biggest fears recently is the possibility that my information sources are becoming warped by group bias
If what you mean by that is your group bias has lead you to mostly consuming and generally trusting official, and/or vetted, well-regarded, traditional news sources, why is that a fear? Sure, those types of sources are far from perfect, and a healthy dose of skepticism regarding them is good. However, they are still far better than the alternatives, who typically have no vetting processes (instead, often making shit up as they see fit), and profit from intentionally misrepresenting facts and spreading misinformation.
And if that fear of yours is leading you toward consuming more content from the conspiracy-theory laden, alt-right, alt-media sphere for the sake of "balance", I would caution you against it. Unless you're well equipped to recognize the manipulation and recruitment tactics they commonly employ, that's a very dangerous rabbit hole to allow yourself to fall down.
p.s. I say all the above not to insult you or your intelligence (that was not my intent), but because I am genuinely worried about you given all that you've said here and hinted at. That rabbit hole I mentioned really is a very very dangerous one, which has unfortunately lead to the radicalization of way too many people over the last few years. Radicalization that has sadly lead to some of them choosing to commit horrible acts of senseless violence and murder against innocent people who they have gradually been convinced are somehow their mortal enemies.
So I posted this thinking of two possibilities: The content was correct and backed up by credible sources (which I thought Nature would be) If the content was correct, what policy implications...
So I posted this thinking of two possibilities:
The content was correct and backed up by credible sources (which I thought Nature would be)
If the content was correct, what policy implications could it have
As far as I'm concerned: good science comes from sound data with sound interpretation. If what he was talking about was correct then I'm less concerned with who is presenting the data than the underlying data itself. Yes, I agree that the tendency of conspiracy theorists (and their news sources) to push lies to mitigate inconvenient truths is a real problem, but my concern is that there could be scientists discrediting the notion that immunity derived from natural immunity might be more effective than first generation covid vaccines. I want to be clear: even if this is true, my initial response would still be to vaccinate everyone because the possibility of saving lives and lack of data to point to the contrary just wasn't available.
My point is that there is conflicting self-interest from both sides on this topic in particular, so hoped that posting it would generate some critical analysis from what I view to be a sceptical, well educated audience.
Well educated some of us may be (for the record, I'm not), but again, AFAIK none of us are educated in the particular areas that matter most to this topic (epidemiology, immunology, or virology)....
Well educated some of us may be (for the record, I'm not), but again, AFAIK none of us are educated in the particular areas that matter most to this topic (epidemiology, immunology, or virology). So I personally wouldn't put much stock in any conclusions drawn by anyone here on the video and its claims, anyways. However, given the highly questionable source of all this information, (who we don't even know is truthfully representing their supposed sources), the conclusion that I personally came to is that until I see this come from a more reputable, legitimate source, I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
p.s. I think I was still editing my comment when you replied. I hope you saw my p.s. edit at the end, since I really didn't intend to insult you, and was worried (after rereading my words) that my reply may have come off that way. So, sorry, if it did. My issues with this topic really do come from a place of genuine concern, not any malice against you.
p.p.s. Have you considered reaching out to someone who actually is an expert on this subject about your concerns and questions? E.g. Friendly Neighbor Epidemiologist
All good, having trusted news sources means you don't have to laboriously verify everything that is said because it might be biased. Good sources trade on their reputation, so have a lot to lose...
All good, having trusted news sources means you don't have to laboriously verify everything that is said because it might be biased. Good sources trade on their reputation, so have a lot to lose pushing misinformation. The guy in the video is a random dude who seems to be promoting his personal website, and from what I've seen there is a lot of money to be made promoting anti-vax content. These are all red flags.
The reason I gave him the benefit of the doubt is that throughout his talk he showed graphs from particular papers and referenced Nature magazine (which I consider to be a good source). I am also interested in the policy implications of his conclusions, and the discussion around that is what prompted me to post it.
Also, no offence taken: we are talking about vaccines which literally save lives. There is a lot at stake, and misinformation can cause real damage.
An interesting video discussing the effectiveness of vaccines and natural immunity over time. There are sources (such as Nature) in the youtube link.
Please feel free to comment on any questions, inconsistencies or mistakes you find. Mine are:
I was apprehensive about this video going into it, given all the comments under it. It's about 90% anti-vaxxers proudly proclaiming they are unvaccinated, survived COVID with no major issues, and sharing anecdotes about the health issues that were allegedly developed by the people they know who were vaccinated.
And after watching the first half of the video I am not feeling any better about it either. I mean, FFS, he starts off with an MS-paint graph he clearly made himself showing what he alleges is the efficacy over time of vaccinations vs "natural" immunity. I'm not a Doctor so probably wouldn't be able to understand the studies he linked to that he is supposedly getting all this information from, and so maybe my instincts are wrong here, but I can't help but feel this is very likely COVID vaccine misinformation.
Edit: He's got a bunch of other videos on his channel from earlier this year promoting Ivermectin as a treatment. IMO this guy is clearly a misinformation peddler.
Thanks for the reply. I was also pretty apprehensive going into it, however one of my biggest fears recently is the possibility that my information sources are becoming warped by group bias. My impression is that tildes membership is predominantly educated and trusts official sources, while my impression of the guy in the video and the audience he is talking to seems to be conspiracy theorists and those who don't trust official sources.
The conclusions he draws are an interesting thought experiment, though. If it is the case that getting Covid rather than the vaccine is as effective from an immune response point of view, then how would that affect public health policy? Where would the trade off be when the risk of someone becoming seriously ill or dying from not taking the vaccine are worth the supposed immune benefits? How would it affect 'covid certificates' for some jobs?
IMO thought experiments like that are not only pointless (since AFAIK none of us here on Tildes are public-health policy experts, epidemiologists, or virologists), but they also have the potential to cause very tangible harm if the discussions manage to convince anyone that there might be some truth to them or the conspiracy-theory laden sources they derive from. And frankly, I have absolutely no interest in taking part in such a discussion for exactly those reasons, and the fact that this topic was removed suggests it isn't just me who feels that way.
Here's a better thought experiment for you, but an ethical one instead. How many people do you think this charlatan DrBeen has gotten killed, or caused long-term (or even permanent) physical injury to, by convincing them to trust their "natural" immunity instead of getting vaccinated, and if infected to take Ivermectin rather than seek proper medical treatment? And how much of that culpability is shared by those who share his videos, help spread his ideas (even as mere "thought experiments), and thus increase his audience, as you have just done?
If what you mean by that is your group bias has lead you to mostly consuming and generally trusting official, and/or vetted, well-regarded, traditional news sources, why is that a fear? Sure, those types of sources are far from perfect, and a healthy dose of skepticism regarding them is good. However, they are still far better than the alternatives, who typically have no vetting processes (instead, often making shit up as they see fit), and profit from intentionally misrepresenting facts and spreading misinformation.
And if that fear of yours is leading you toward consuming more content from the conspiracy-theory laden, alt-right, alt-media sphere for the sake of "balance", I would caution you against it. Unless you're well equipped to recognize the manipulation and recruitment tactics they commonly employ, that's a very dangerous rabbit hole to allow yourself to fall down.
p.s. I say all the above not to insult you or your intelligence (that was not my intent), but because I am genuinely worried about you given all that you've said here and hinted at. That rabbit hole I mentioned really is a very very dangerous one, which has unfortunately lead to the radicalization of way too many people over the last few years. Radicalization that has sadly lead to some of them choosing to commit horrible acts of senseless violence and murder against innocent people who they have gradually been convinced are somehow their mortal enemies.
So I posted this thinking of two possibilities:
The content was correct and backed up by credible sources (which I thought Nature would be)
If the content was correct, what policy implications could it have
As far as I'm concerned: good science comes from sound data with sound interpretation. If what he was talking about was correct then I'm less concerned with who is presenting the data than the underlying data itself. Yes, I agree that the tendency of conspiracy theorists (and their news sources) to push lies to mitigate inconvenient truths is a real problem, but my concern is that there could be scientists discrediting the notion that immunity derived from natural immunity might be more effective than first generation covid vaccines. I want to be clear: even if this is true, my initial response would still be to vaccinate everyone because the possibility of saving lives and lack of data to point to the contrary just wasn't available.
My point is that there is conflicting self-interest from both sides on this topic in particular, so hoped that posting it would generate some critical analysis from what I view to be a sceptical, well educated audience.
Well educated some of us may be (for the record, I'm not), but again, AFAIK none of us are educated in the particular areas that matter most to this topic (epidemiology, immunology, or virology). So I personally wouldn't put much stock in any conclusions drawn by anyone here on the video and its claims, anyways. However, given the highly questionable source of all this information, (who we don't even know is truthfully representing their supposed sources), the conclusion that I personally came to is that until I see this come from a more reputable, legitimate source, I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
p.s. I think I was still editing my comment when you replied. I hope you saw my p.s. edit at the end, since I really didn't intend to insult you, and was worried (after rereading my words) that my reply may have come off that way. So, sorry, if it did. My issues with this topic really do come from a place of genuine concern, not any malice against you.
p.p.s. Have you considered reaching out to someone who actually is an expert on this subject about your concerns and questions? E.g. Friendly Neighbor Epidemiologist
All good, having trusted news sources means you don't have to laboriously verify everything that is said because it might be biased. Good sources trade on their reputation, so have a lot to lose pushing misinformation. The guy in the video is a random dude who seems to be promoting his personal website, and from what I've seen there is a lot of money to be made promoting anti-vax content. These are all red flags.
The reason I gave him the benefit of the doubt is that throughout his talk he showed graphs from particular papers and referenced Nature magazine (which I consider to be a good source). I am also interested in the policy implications of his conclusions, and the discussion around that is what prompted me to post it.
Also, no offence taken: we are talking about vaccines which literally save lives. There is a lot at stake, and misinformation can cause real damage.