|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On December 05 2021 06:30 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2021 06:16 teeel141 wrote:On December 05 2021 06:02 JimmiC wrote:On December 05 2021 05:49 teeel141 wrote:On December 05 2021 05:06 ChristianS wrote:On December 05 2021 03:46 teeel141 wrote:On December 05 2021 02:16 WombaT wrote:
@Blitzkrieg, I was overly flippant without reading, which is on me, my bad.
Some of what is outlined is concerning if true, but I think it’s referring to something different than I expected/responding too. Namely conflicts of influence biasing and pressuring consensus in the scientific community, which is then reflected by the non-science media who defer to scientific expertise in disseminating information.
At the next level of information spreading, namely all us amateurs generating content for eyeballs on social media, I’m extremely skeptical of the constant charges of censorship.
One of those charges like the Democrats being socialists that I file in my ‘would be cool if that were true’ cabinet. I mean there’s an entire cottage industry of folks who say the things that ‘they won’t let you say’.
Despite barely using many social media platforms anymore, I’ve encountered all sorts of terms or scientific phenomena people evidently don’t understand (neither do I incidentally). Exclusively dovetailed with some kind of conspiratorial twist, or in service of a general anti-vaccine platform. Antigenic sin, gain of function research… I could go on, and this is from barely dipping my toes in.
@Christian I continually wrestle with this one, I’m really at a loss. You can’t practically moderate the rest of the interwebz in a matter similar to TL, although I do think it would improve things.
It’s a relatively new ecosystem, perhaps with time we’ll better adapt to it, although I do have my doubts there. Conspiracy theories have pushed on from being a harmless, hell even charming hobby about things of little practical import like aliens to being way more widespread and actually impactful to the social and cultural realm.
Antigenic sin is not complicated at all you can read the wikipedia article on it which is short and simple. It's obviously a real phenomenon and could be a problem with variant specific vaccines. It has been a problem in the past for the flu vaccines. It might be clarifying for everyone if you explained what you think should be done/should have been done as a result of the phenomena you’re highlighting. Antigenic sin is a phenomenon that exists that you read about Wikipedia, therefore… what? Therefore vaccination is bad actually? Therefore we should just infect everyone with Covid instead? Therefore we should use more NPIs like lockdowns and masks to prevent spread instead of relying mostly on vaccination? Because if your point is just “here’s a bad thing that could hypothetically happen,” then, agreed! There’s a lot of bad things that could hypothetically happen! But it’s usually only useful to consider them insomuch as it informs the course of action we would take. My point was that it's not actually a complicated thing and is understandable even for non experts. But ChristianS's point is that if you cant apply the concept than there is not undrrstanding or ita pointless to bring up. The same way if you cant define the "they" they probably dont exist. When he says that it's not a useful thing to consider. I think he's being ridiculous. What are your thoughts on that? I mean, it’s not really. If the question is “how protected will people with immunity be against a new variant?” the answer is “we don’t know!” If you then raise your hand and say “actually, in rare cases they can be even less protected than a naïve immune system due to this obscure immunological phenomenon!” what are we supposed to say? Pat you on the head and congratulate you on your Wikipedia reading comprehension? Add a clarifying footnote to “we don’t know!” that the range of protection could include negative numbers, not just 0-100%? If you think it’s useful to consider, explain why! For instance, by saying in your own words what should be done differently or should have been done differently because of this information! If you’re just sharing trivia, I’ll file this away for future trivia nights and then go back to discussing the pandemic!
It's useful to consider when it comes to variant specific vaccines at the very least.
|
On December 05 2021 07:35 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2021 07:21 BlackJack wrote:On December 05 2021 01:21 ChristianS wrote:I mean, I think the tech sector’s trend toward heavier moderation this year has been badly handled in a lot of ways (Twitter’s recent “privacy policy” seems particularly disastrous), and in general I tend to favor more permissive moderation philosophies on the Internet (including here on TL). But in the last couple years you occasionally encounter deranged posters insisting on some constellation of: - Absolute certainty natural origin is impossible
- Implying or outright stating it was engineered and/or released intentionally by some Enemy (Democrats, Russia, China, or worse, some ethnic group)
- Implying or outright stating the virus or its symptoms are a hoax
- Demanding policies focused on retribution against China or, worse, Chinese people
- Asserting that various recommended public health interventions (social distancing, masks, vaccines) do nothing or actually make it worse, often as part of some conspiracy to control us (Wake up, sheeple!)
Depending on which parts of that constellation are present, I’d absolutely expect either an outright ban or, at least, that poster be kept on an exceptionally tight leash, and that goes for TL as well. In most cases, it wouldn’t actually make a huge difference to me if some new evidence improbably proved them right about something. What if we learn the virus was actually a natural specimen collected by WIV and improperly disposed of? Or if there’s some replication crisis on studies regarding masks and it turns out the evidence for their effectiveness came from some difficult-to-control confounding variables? While possible, I think those are both pretty unlikely based on current evidence, and a poster like that a) is making a lot more extreme assertions than those hypotheticals would prove, and b) has no evidence I don’t have in asserting them. That is to say, I expect someone spouting lab leak theories would have been actioned last year (whether on Twitter, FB, or here on TL). Maybe they still would (depending, as moderation usually does, on how they go about it). But I’m not sure that’s wrong, even if people have warmed on the lab leak hypothesis in the mean time. I'm not too concerned about whackadoos being able to spout whatever they want on social media without evidence. I'm more concerned that the people that are tasked with gathering the evidence, like scientists and journalists, are going to be deterred from doing so because the road to the truth can cause them to be labeled a racist, conspiracy theorist, and be de-platformed from social media. The biggest catalyst to the "warming up" to the lab leak hypothesis in my opinion was when Jon Stewart talked about it on the Colbert show. He took significant risk to his own reputation in doing that and he was still strongly criticized by many people for it. China has not been very transparent with investigators looking into the origins of COVID, refusing to hand over data, refusing access to the lab, etc. I think it's not a good idea to silence people that you feel don't have sufficient evidence at the same time an interested party is trying to stifle the evidence from seeing the light of day. But I don’t see the connection between banning the whackadoos and journalists and scientists being scared to pursue hypotheses. Idk when the Jon Stewart interview was, but back in January I remember a New Yorker (I think?) article presenting the evidence for lab leak. It was pretty careful in its conclusions, and I don’t know if Twitter got mad or something but I at least didn’t hear much outrage about it. If people genuinely think they can’t investigate a question that’s an issue, but if people just know something is a thorny issue so they’re going to have to be cautious and tactful in their argumentation, I don’t see a problem. So let’s ban the whackadoos and then try to keep an open mind to alternative perspectives that are presented carefully and sincerely, no?
There was an interview between two chess players earlier this year that got censored/demonetized by youtube because they kept using the words "white" "Black" "attack." I'm quite skeptical that big tech is capable of only censoring the whackadoos and not the legitimate journalists. Here's an article that facebook attempted to censor back when they were censoring the lab-leak hypothesis
https://unherd.com/2021/02/the-whos-covid-shame/
It's not exactly the rantings of someone convinced that Bill Gates wants to inject us with microchips or that 5G towers spread COVID
|
I mean, there’s a lot of stories of moderation algorithms misfiring. I just saw one today where a doctor trying to *debunk* Ivermectin quacks pointed out that when he prescribes Ivermectin for its actual indications, it just *works* - not only with zinc, or only if you catch it early, or only on Tuesdays, or any of the other excuses Ivermectin quacks use for failed trials. His post got tagged as Covid misinformation, presumably because the algorithm figured out he was saying Ivermectin works but didn’t realize he didn’t mean for Covid.
A lot of their algorithms are bad. But even good algorithms would make mistakes like that sometimes. It doesn’t change the fact that if someone comes along insisting on calling it the Kung Flu and saying we should blow up a Chinese city every time a new variant is discovered, that guy should get banned. Under almost any theory of internet moderation besides “there shouldn’t be any,” that’s actionable, and the whole platform suffers if you never action anyone.
“Where is the line?” problems in internet moderation are never easy, and I’m not surprised it’s so hard to do it well algorithmically, but I think platforms should do their best to solve the problem. I don’t think they’ve done a great job so far, but people do not have an inalienable right to tweet or go viral on Facebook. Do your best to comply with the rules of any platform you’re on, and if you think you’ve been wrongly actioned plead your case, but if you just don’t like the rules on that platform, don’t post. I’ll have opinions case-by-case on moderation decisions (I’ve disagreed with TL bands before), but I don’t think any of these crusades against “Big Tech Censorship” are clarifying at all.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 05 2021 09:16 ChristianS wrote:
“Where is the line?” problems in internet moderation are never easy, and I’m not surprised it’s so hard to do it well algorithmically, but I think platforms should do their best to solve the problem. I don’t think they’ve done a great job so far, but people do not have an inalienable right to tweet or go viral on Facebook. Do your best to comply with the rules of any platform you’re on, and if you think you’ve been wrongly actioned plead your case, but if you just don’t like the rules on that platform, don’t post. I’ll have opinions case-by-case on moderation decisions (I’ve disagreed with TL bands before), but I don’t think any of these crusades against “Big Tech Censorship” are clarifying at all.
I see two problems with this line of logic here:
1. The entire concept of "their platform, their rules" embedded here seems to be very much in conflict with the fact that some of the largest of these platforms can be argued to monopolistic in their control over a certain medium of discourse. Big social media entities like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter definitely do their best to make sure that there are no viable alternatives, which gives "their house" an outsized impact on overall public discourse. Perhaps something to be regulated, all things considered.
2. It is implied that this internet moderation is being done in good faith, and that mistakes made are generally unintended ones. That would be a bold claim to make; there are absolutely clear signs of commercially and sometimes even politically motivated censorship by these companies.
Granted, doing it right is a hard problem to solve, and there's no easy answers to these problems. But the charity given to "big tech censorship" here seems unwarranted.
|
On December 05 2021 10:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2021 09:16 ChristianS wrote:
“Where is the line?” problems in internet moderation are never easy, and I’m not surprised it’s so hard to do it well algorithmically, but I think platforms should do their best to solve the problem. I don’t think they’ve done a great job so far, but people do not have an inalienable right to tweet or go viral on Facebook. Do your best to comply with the rules of any platform you’re on, and if you think you’ve been wrongly actioned plead your case, but if you just don’t like the rules on that platform, don’t post. I’ll have opinions case-by-case on moderation decisions (I’ve disagreed with TL bands before), but I don’t think any of these crusades against “Big Tech Censorship” are clarifying at all. I see two problems with this line of logic here: 1. The entire concept of "their platform, their rules" embedded here seems to be very much in conflict with the fact that some of the largest of these platforms can be argued to monopolistic in their control over a certain medium of discourse. Big social media entities like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter definitely do their best to make sure that there are no viable alternatives, which gives "their house" an outsized impact on overall public discourse. Perhaps something to be regulated, all things considered. 2. It is implied that this internet moderation is being done in good faith, and that mistakes made are generally unintended ones. That would be a bold claim to make; there are absolutely clear signs of commercially and sometimes even politically motivated censorship by these companies. Granted, doing it right is a hard problem to solve, and there's no easy answers to these problems. But the charity given to "big tech censorship" here seems unwarranted.
You can argue whatever you want man, I’m not gonna stop you!
Bit funny to list several competitors in the same space and call them all “monopolies” though. There’s not nothing to it, the different “competing” platforms occupy pretty different roles on the internet so they’re not quite “competing.” And there’s network effects, etc. that make the market naturally tend toward a single platform for a purpose. Interestingly, FB et al. regularly get dragged before Congress and generally beg Congress to regulate them, so it’s not actually very controversial to say “there oughta be some regulations here.”
What those regulations should be, though, seems like an important question nobody seems to agree on. I’d favor some regulations on newsfeed-type algorithms. Maybe make them publish their algorithm so we know what it’s doing at least? Or maybe that will make it too easy for people to design content that breaks the algorithm, idk. There could be regulations about admissible and inadmissible information to use in your algorithm, or admissible and inadmissible information to store (and sell) about users, although (and you’d know better than me) it’s a bit hard to regulate what goes into machine learning.
You sound like you want regulation of moderation, though, which sounds like a trainwreck to me. Unconstitutional here in the states, for one, and more fundamentally, this isn’t a situation where there are good rules we know they should follow but sometimes they cheat and do something else. Nobody knows the right way to moderate the internet, especially at scale, and the people with the most expertise trying to solve that problem generally work for one of those tech giants. Just about everybody thinks the moderation is too harsh on their team and too light on the other team. I know a fair number of leftists who are convinced FB is biased against the left, and when they do things like declare Breitbart one of, like, 7 “trusted news sources” I don’t think their argument is totally implausible, counter to the usual narrative though it may be.
At the end of the day “moderation should be less biased” is a bit like saying “wages should be higher.” Understandable sentiment, but without putting some meat on the proposal, it’s not saying much.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 05 2021 11:04 ChristianS wrote:
Bit funny to list several competitors in the same space and call them all “monopolies” though.
Call it an oligopoly (with some instances of behaving as a cartel) if that semantic quibble makes you feel better. The concern is still the same - a very small number of actors can have an outsized effect, and have incentives to act in concert, in such a way that makes "it's their house" look like a downright silly thing to say about such far-reaching entities. Certainly rather "monopolistic" behavior.
On December 05 2021 11:04 ChristianS wrote:
At the end of the day “moderation should be less biased” is a bit like saying “wages should be higher.” Understandable sentiment, but without putting some meat on the proposal, it’s not saying much.
Or in other words, it's a hard problem to solve. Which is pretty trivially true, but I don't think anyone contests that.
But again, what seems problematic in your line of logic is the implicit assertion of good faith in the approach taken to moderation. It may be valid that "it's hard to do" and "leftists complain too" but doesn't mean that there isn't commercial and political motivation in how content is promoted/demoted and censored by said platforms. Or in other words, maybe the reason that "they're not doing a good job at it" as you claim is because they don't want to do a good job at it?
As for if I'm arguing for regulation of moderation - I suppose that's a good question. I'll offer that I think that the corporate exemption to freedom of speech seems to be in practice an obvious backdoor to the intent of the law. Easier to exploit to legally censor than to meaningfully address, though. Reducing the ability for large companies to quash or acquire competition in social media would be a reasonable solution more in line with what seems feasible.
|
Probably the easiest way to start talking about regulation is to talk about what practices they’re engaging in that you think are bad, and then offer a rule you think might address it. In this case, I guess you think they’re discriminating against conservatives? What’s the rule you’d impose? From our very own USPMT you’ll know there’s a million shades of political speech and it’s virtually impossible (maybe not even desirable?) for zero viewpoint discrimination to factor in. If the mods think your point is batshit crazy they’re more likely to action you, that’s always going to be the case. Other factors still matter (a respectful right-wing poster might be okay, a name-calling left-wing poster might get actioned), but viewpoint is always a factor.
I work in a heavily regulated industry, and I can imagine what some of the regulatory apparatus might look like. If FB wanted to change the newsfeed algorithm or ad-serving algorithm or something, they’d have to run it through a validation first. Document the change and run tests to prove it doesn’t run afoul of the guidelines, and provide all that documentation to a regulatory authority who can come and audit them if they want.
Trouble is, what guidelines? In my industry those are mostly concerned with data integrity (ALCOA) or meeting some industry standards of quality metric (no bacterial endotoxins, osmolarity within spec, etc.). What are quality metrics on algorithms? Some racial discrimination tests (I think Twitter’s image auto-crop ran afoul of this)? Ensuring any paid promotions are labeled as such? What rule could you pass that they have to follow?
Point is, I’m not assuming good faith from tech companies. Maybe all their decisions are cynical and politically motivated. But I have yet to hear any satisfactory principle for how they should moderate their platforms, let alone a regulatory scheme to enforce it, political plan to enact it, etc. Without that stuff, I do think the railing against big tech censorship amounts to little more than a relatively unexamined “I wish internet moderation was fairer (or at least favored me more)”.
|
On December 05 2021 12:05 ChristianS wrote:
Probably the easiest way to start talking about regulation is to talk about what practices they’re engaging in that you think are bad, and then offer a rule you think might address it. In this case, I guess you think they’re discriminating against conservatives? What’s the rule you’d impose? From our very own USPMT you’ll know there’s a million shades of political speech and it’s virtually impossible (maybe not even desirable?) for zero viewpoint discrimination to factor in. If the mods think your point is batshit crazy they’re more likely to action you, that’s always going to be the case. Other factors still matter (a respectful right-wing poster might be okay, a name-calling left-wing poster might get actioned), but viewpoint is always a factor.
I work in a heavily regulated industry, and I can imagine what some of the regulatory apparatus might look like. If FB wanted to change the newsfeed algorithm or ad-serving algorithm or something, they’d have to run it through a validation first. Document the change and run tests to prove it doesn’t run afoul of the guidelines, and provide all that documentation to a regulatory authority who can come and audit them if they want.
Trouble is, what guidelines? In my industry those are mostly concerned with data integrity (ALCOA) or meeting some industry standards of quality metric (no bacterial endotoxins, osmolarity within spec, etc.). What are quality metrics on algorithms? Some racial discrimination tests (I think Twitter’s image auto-crop ran afoul of this)? Ensuring any paid promotions are labeled as such? What rule could you pass that they have to follow?
Point is, I’m not assuming good faith from tech companies. Maybe all their decisions are cynical and politically motivated. But I have yet to hear any satisfactory principle for how they should moderate their platforms, let alone a regulatory scheme to enforce it, political plan to enact it, etc. Without that stuff, I do think the railing against big tech censorship amounts to little more than a relatively unexamined “I wish internet moderation was fairer (or at least favored me more)”. Its important to remember that FB, Twitter ect started going harder on these moderation mechanics and algorithms not because the government makes them, but to ensure the government doesn't make them.
The goal isn't to meet ethical guidelines that are set forth by some organisation but to keep governments happy that something is being done so that they don't bother to form that organisation and to allow 'big tech' to keep doing there own thing without government intervention.
|
On December 05 2021 07:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2021 07:36 Simberto wrote:
As some personal anecdote, i got my third shot yesterday (Biontech/Pfizer this time, after 2 Moderna shots in April and June). The reaction was a lot less bad. While i was pretty knocked out for a day and my arm hurt like hell for another one on both my first and second shots, this time i only got some light muscle ache, to the point i actually forgot i got the vaccine yesterday.
I have no clue if this is a common experience, but this makes getting multiple vaccine shots even less of a hassle to deal with. Instead of losing a whole day, it basically only lost the about 30 minutes it took to head to the doctor and get the shot. Anecdotally, I've heard a lot of the same: It seems to be the case that those who get Pfizer tend to have less severe side-effects, and for less time, than those who get Moderna. That being said, I'm pretty sure it's because Moderna is a "stronger" dose that's technically a bit better, so there's probably a trade-off there.
Seems to be the case. In the uk they are giving Pfizer or a half dose of moderna for the booster.
|
Is there any reason why AZ is not being talked up as much as a booster (even in the UK)? Or maybe I'm just missing the fine print. A lot of booster talk seems to revolve around Pfizer.
|
On December 05 2021 21:26 RKC wrote:
Is there any reason why AZ is not being talked up as much as a booster (even in the UK)? Or maybe I'm just missing the fine print. A lot of booster talk seems to revolve around Pfizer. I believe its because Pfizer (and maybe Moderna) are more effective then AZ. Early on when the goal was to vaccinate as many as possible as quickly as possible AZ was used because there wasn't enough Pfizer to go around but that is a lot less the case now so governments are going for what is most effective.
|
The whole argument with vaccinating children was/is to reduce the rate of spread. Yet with the new variant vaccines might be almost useless when it comes to reducing the spread of the virus. So why are they still vaccinating children? Because it's politically impossible to reverse course?
|
|
|
On December 05 2021 23:31 teeel141 wrote:
The whole argument with vaccinating children was/is to reduce the rate of spread. Yet with the new variant vaccines might be almost useless when it comes to reducing the spread of the virus. So why are they still vaccinating children? Because it's politically impossible to reverse course? Where do you get the notion from that vaccines are useless against Omicron?
Seriously, whatever echo chamber your stuck in that fills your head with this crap, take a breather. Your consistently wrong about basically everything and are trying to fearmonger about how everything is useless and nothing works without even the most basic understanding of how the immune system or vaccines in general work.
A highschool biology textbook can tell you that your reasoning is bullshit.
|
On December 05 2021 23:31 teeel141 wrote:
The whole argument with vaccinating children was/is to reduce the rate of spread. Yet with the new variant vaccines might be almost useless when it comes to reducing the spread of the virus. So why are they still vaccinating children? Because it's politically impossible to reverse course?
That was never the "whole argument". It was one of several benefits. Vaccines also reduce the severity of symptoms, for example, so even if severe symptoms are less likely in children than in adults, there's still no reason not to play it safe and have kids get vaccinated too. Plus, just because a vaccine may not help reduce the spread of one particular variant doesn't mean it won't help reduce the spread of others (there can be several variants existing at any one time).
|
On December 06 2021 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2021 23:31 teeel141 wrote:
The whole argument with vaccinating children was/is to reduce the rate of spread. Yet with the new variant vaccines might be almost useless when it comes to reducing the spread of the virus. So why are they still vaccinating children? Because it's politically impossible to reverse course? That was never the "whole argument". It was one of several benefits. Vaccines also reduce the severity of symptoms, for example, so even if severe symptoms are less likely in children than in adults, there's still no reason not to play it safe and have kids get vaccinated too. Plus, just because a vaccine may not help reduce the spread of one particular variant doesn't mean it won't help reduce the spread of others (there can be several variants existing at any one time).
Also, i fucking hate the baseline of that argument by teeel141. He always works off the basic assumptions that vaccines are bad and dangerous by default. This is so exhausting. Vaccines work. When was the last time you met someone who had smallpox?
The covid vaccines are safe, they are safe for children, and they greatly reduce the severity and infectiousness of a currently ongoing pandemic.
|
On December 06 2021 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2021 23:31 teeel141 wrote:
The whole argument with vaccinating children was/is to reduce the rate of spread. Yet with the new variant vaccines might be almost useless when it comes to reducing the spread of the virus. So why are they still vaccinating children? Because it's politically impossible to reverse course? That was never the "whole argument". It was one of several benefits. Vaccines also reduce the severity of symptoms, for example, so even if severe symptoms are less likely in children than in adults, there's still no reason not to play it safe and have kids get vaccinated too. Plus, just because a vaccine may not help reduce the spread of one particular variant doesn't mean it won't help reduce the spread of others (there can be several variants existing at any one time).
Just want to clarify that there is a reason so long as there aren't enough vaccines/boosters for notably more at-risk populations around the world.
Allocating 100's of millions of vaccines yet to be distributed for healthy children in wealthier countries instead of notably more vulnerable populations in poorer countries isn't without ethical or epidemiological implications. Maybe it maths out to be sensible, I just want to emphasize that it isn't without reason that people wouldn't prioritize vaccinating such children ahead of more vulnerable populations globally.
That said, I don't think that's where Teeel's coming from or matters if there is ample supply available (also means it's not economically prohibitive) for those willing to take it anywhere in the world. I just have a problem with the notion that wealthy western nations can consume (or waste unused) endless vaccines/boosters without considerable negative consequences (not talking about clinical side effects).
|
On December 06 2021 00:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2021 00:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2021 23:31 teeel141 wrote:
The whole argument with vaccinating children was/is to reduce the rate of spread. Yet with the new variant vaccines might be almost useless when it comes to reducing the spread of the virus. So why are they still vaccinating children? Because it's politically impossible to reverse course? That was never the "whole argument". It was one of several benefits. Vaccines also reduce the severity of symptoms, for example, so even if severe symptoms are less likely in children than in adults, there's still no reason not to play it safe and have kids get vaccinated too. Plus, just because a vaccine may not help reduce the spread of one particular variant doesn't mean it won't help reduce the spread of others (there can be several variants existing at any one time). Just want to clarify that there is a reason so long as there aren't enough vaccines/boosters for notably more at-risk populations around the world. Allocating 100's of millions of vaccines yet to be distributed for healthy children in wealthier countries instead of notably more vulnerable populations in poorer countries isn't without ethical or epidemiological implications. Maybe it maths out to be sensible, I just want to emphasize that it isn't without reason that people wouldn't prioritize vaccinating such children ahead of more vulnerable populations globally. That said, I don't think that's where Teeel's coming from or matters if there is ample supply available (also means it's not economically prohibitive) for those willing to take it anywhere in the world. I just have a problem with the notion that wealthy western nations can consume (or waste unused) endless vaccines/boosters without considerable negative consequences (not talking about clinical side effects).
Yes, that's fair. That's definitely not the anti-vaxxer / vaccine-skeptic / vaccine-hesitant / children-shouldn't-get-vaxxed argument though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
