Pfizer Vaccine gets full FDA approval and new name.

Post Reply New Topic

I wonder what people who are afraid of needles will use as an excuse now?

Lack of a long term study?

You really want to get into moving goalposts in the COVID era?

I'm glad you mentioned the "immuno-compromised." I am stressed out on a daily basis over my best friend who falls into that category. I can't take another loss in my life. I just can't!

I'm sorry you've had to go through that. This is a painful time we're living in.

But Mandavilli completely overlooks other factors that help explain why so many Americans are disinclined to accept the government's guidance as gospel. Public health advice is not simply a function of science. It incorporates cost-benefit analyses and value judgments on which well-informed people of good faith can honestly differ. Whether "universal masking" in schools makes sense, for instance, depends not only on the uncertain evidence that it prevents outbreaks but on the weight one assigns to the burdens that policy imposes. It also depends on what level of risk is deemed tolerable.

In this case and others, it often seems that public health agencies are working backward, settling on a policy and then searching for evidence to back it up. Anyone who delves into the studies that the CDC cites to justify its recommendation that everyone 2 or older wear face masks in schools and other public settings, regardless of their vaccination status, can see that science is just one element of the agency's deliberative process.

The CDC's initial dismissal of general mask wearing as a precaution against COVID-19 likewise was clearly influenced by nonscientific considerations—in particular, the concern that the practice would aggravate a shortage of masks for health care workers. The agency's reversal of that position in April 2020, although supposedly justified by evolving evidence, officially was driven mainly by concerns about asymptomatic transmission, a danger that had been recognized for months. And while the CDC's double reversal of its mask advice to vaccinated Americans was based on concerns about a new development—the proliferation of the delta variant, coupled with evidence that vaccines are less effective at preventing infection by it—there was legitimate disagreement about the merits of both shifts.

State policy likewise has been driven by scientifically questionable reasoning. After California banned outdoor restaurant dining in late 2020, the state's health secretary admitted the policy was not based on evidence that the newly prohibited activity posed a significant risk of virus transmission. The real aim, he said, was to discourage Californians from leaving home.

Around the same time, San Mateo County Health Officer Scott Morrow, an early advocate of lockdowns in the San Francisco Bay Area, complained that there was little rhyme or reason to the new restrictions imposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, which ultimately delivered no perceptible public health benefit. "I am aware of no data that some of the business activities on which even greater restrictions are being put into place with this new order are the major drivers of transmission," Morrow said. "I'm not sure we know what we're doing."

Morrow, a physician with a public health degree who has been San Mateo County's health officer since 1992, presumably cannot be accused of misunderstanding how science works. His complaint was that California's policies were not justified by the evidence.

They're not even getting into my personal favorite covid flip-flop, the whole "it's okay to attend racial justice protests but not okay to leave the house for other reasons" loophole of last spring and summer, in which public health officials blatantly played politics with their medical advice.

I wasn't aware of them ever actually claiming it was safe to protest without wearing a mask. What I saw was more of a "it would be insensitive to bring this up now" silence on the matter, helped by the fact the events were all outdoors and masks tended to be worn more often than not. Did I miss something?

In theory, the mass protests following the alleged murder of George Floyd put public health officials who have ceaselessly inveighed against mass gatherings in a difficult position. They have called for a moratorium on most types of public activities, but particularly gathering in large crowds where increased aerosolization from loud talking and yelling could spread the COVID-19 virus to massive groups.

But when it comes to the protests against police brutality, many medical experts think there should be an exemption to the COVID-19 lockdown logic.

More than a thousand public health experts signed an open letter specifically stating that "we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States."

The letter conceded that mass protests carried the risk of spreading coronavirus, and offered some good—if naive—advice for people who are going out anyway: wear masks, stay home if sick, attempt to maintain six feet of distance from other protesters. Many protesters are wearing masks, but others are not. And while we can blame the police for forcefully corralling people into close quarters, it's a bit rich for public health experts to endorse protesting under conditions that they know are impossible for protesters to meet.

Indeed, for the purposes of offering health care advice, the only thing that should matter to doctors is whether their harm-reduction recommendations are being followed: how big is the event, is it outdoors, are masks being worn, etc. However, the letter distinguishes police violence protesters from "white protesters resisting stay-home orders," as if the virus could distinguish between the two types of events. While I am not a doctor, my understanding is that it cannot.

People flocked to take the polio vaccine—even though there were no long-term studies as to its efficacy.