Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Title of last paragraph:

"No evidence of vaccine effect"



https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-phrase-no-evidence...

You can see the problem. Science communicators are using the same term - “no evidence” - to mean:

This thing is super plausible, and honestly very likely true, but we haven’t checked yet, so we can’t be sure.

We have hard-and-fast evidence that this is false, stop repeating this easily debunked lie.

This is utterly corrosive to anybody trusting science journalism.


They reduced deaths from covid by an absolutely insane level, it's undeniable and easily provable. Without vaccines we would still be doing regular lockdowns.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Look at those first two massive spikes in daily deaths in the last two charts. That level of exponential increase in daily deaths led to two long lockdowns, which as you can see temporarily dealt with the issue. Can you spot where vaccines were introduced en masse and we never had a lockdown again? It's really not difficult to see that vaccines effectively stopped exponentially growing daily deaths. To argue that they had no effect is bordering on insane, or at least just extreme ignorance of data.

* To argue against lockdowns is to say it's perfectly fine for those exponential deaths to climb to the level of tens of thousands per day. Obviously no reasonable government was ever going to let that happen, it would be a PR nightmare. So the anti lockdown argument was always a non starter.

* To argue against vaccines is to say that it's ok to have regular ongoing lockdowns.

Yet paradoxically the anti lockdowns and anti vaccine crowds are the same! Frankly, both positions are completely silly.

(A reasonable argument could be made for no lockdowns, but the reality is no western government would ever implement that strategy. We have to live in reality.)


Please glimpse at the article. "No evidence of vaccine effect" in that context meant "no evidence that the vaccines contributed excess deaths in 2022"


I didnt know BBC were data analysis experts and could be trusted to make final conclusions on this.


Because it’s so hard to understand the complicated math that is 50x — aka you’re 50x more likely to experience heart issues from catching Covid than getting the vaccine. If you think you can avoid getting Covid then you may have a point. But for any normal rational person living a normal rational life, the vaccine makes sense. I understand you may not fall into that group.


> aka you’re 50x more likely to experience heart issues from catching Covid than getting the vaccine.

This is completely false, because it cherry picks the data from people who were hospitalized with severe COVID cases. Most people who recovered with very few symptoms after COVID did not end up with any heart damage.


If that is "cherry picking" -- then your data is also cherry picked --- as people who have the vaccine are less likely to end up with severe Covid hospitalization




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: