My thoughts on anti vax passport article

A songwriting friend sent me a link to an article asking my opinion .As some of you might have noticed I have an interest in the area .

I don’t claim to be a serious reviewer of scientific studies but I thought I’d share my thoughts on why I came to the conclusion it’s just a load of Bullsh…t

Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished

( seems the link has been deleted as is “ inaccurate “ )

There are Two articles to look at , the original scientific Study and then the Article which gives opinions about what we should based on the findings of the study .


Ok , so the Study from Israel suggests that someone who has had Covid has better protection against delta than having the vaccine . Pre print article that hasn’t been peer reviewed , but let’s assume it’s accurate .


Reality is that no one ( certainly I wouldn’t be surprised ) if an actual infection gives better than a vaccine . There were early suggestions that the vaccine might give better protection than previous disease , but that was pre delta and I haven’t heard that suggestion repeated recently .


The data concludes that compared to someone who has had a vaccine , compared to someone who has had a previous infection , is more likely to get an infection or end up in hospital . Crucially though , someone who has had a vaccine is no more likely to die than someone who has had a previous infection .


The Article then suggest that the scientific data invalidates the use of vaccine passports and I think this is just wrong.


I think it would be reasonable to suggest that anyone who had had a previous infection was entitled to the same privileges as someone who has the vaccine . Of course you’d have to have a way of proving someone’s had it , and might need to look at things like what level of antibodies gives someone protection.


And to be honest I think that’s the only thing you could conclude BUT it needs further study


First thing it’s a preprint study , with no numbers in it , is this a study of 200 people or 20,000 ? Big difference . It needs to be pier reviewed including a thorough analysis of their underlying data . Then other studies need to be done to confirm the data . Science is full of studies which show one thing and subsequent studies show that to be wrong .


Any scientist who is serious about what they are doing , who suggests sweeping changes to public policy impacting billions of people worldwide on the basis of the summary of non pier reviewed article which hasn’t been backed up by studies , is not thinking with a scientific hat on and in this basis alone , i think it’s fair to discount any conclusions the Article makes


But that not all folks , it’s just the start .


First big flaw , this is about Pfizer , so any conclusion about vaccines in general and how that effects public policy is just

plain wrong .


Then let’s look more at the article .


The headline suggests that this is a death blow to vaccine passport


I don’t have think at any time in the article they give any arguements to back that headline up , and let’s face it , what do most people remember . The headline . It’s totally misleading


The articles lead argument is that :


Vaccine passports are morally dubious for many reasons, not the least of which is that freedom of movement is a basic human right.


That’s a moral argument and the Study didn’t say that . The fact that they lead with a moral argument tells us what they really think is important and it really about “ human rights “ . I could go on about obligations to our fellow citizens but in my opinion the fixation about human rights that a significant percentage of the US population have is in part responsible for the US suffering the worst medical impact from Covid …


Then the article quotes their expert


Harvard Medical School professor Martin Kulldorff said research showing that natural immunity offers exponentially more protection than vaccines means vaccine passports are both unscientific and discriminatory, since they disproportionately affect working class individuals.


First thing , I don’t remember “ exponential “ being used in the study …


Ok , this is where their argument falls apart . So they ( possible correctly , but yet to be confirmed ) suggest that natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity . Mmm


Whoa , hold on a minute .


So in order to get the BEST protection , we’ve got to catch Covid !!


So is he suggesting that everyone has to get a deadly disease that’s killing millions ….and we’re only just starting to realise the significant long term impacts of !!


That’s the only logical conclusion I can come up with if the world was to follow through with their suggestion that natural immunity is best and they got their way .


Based on a 1 % death rate that would result in 78 million deaths .


He then concluded that vaccine passports discriminate against the working class . Around this neck of the woods they’re suggesting vaccine passports for restaurants , flights and travel . I’d suggest that not getting a vaccine passport is going to impact the lifestyle of the well off more than the working class .


Personally I’m going to be at the head of the queue to get one so I can get back to the cook islands or go on that one month European holiday with a two week cruise that got canned by Covid ….


The next section


“prior COVID disease (many working class) provides better immunity than vaccines (many professionals), so vaccine mandates are not only scientific nonsense, they are also discriminatory and unethical,” Kulldorff, a biostatistician and epidemiologist, observed on Twitter


So now he states that vaccination rates are high in professional areas and infections higher in working class areas .


Based on what I’ve seen in Australia this may well correct , but does this justify doing away with vaccine passports . If we do , what happens . Who is not protected ?


Well given that infection rates are higher in working class area it’s going to be the working class . They tend to have more people per house , more crowded , less chance to self isolate .


I had to self isolate for two weeks in early 2020 . We’d already set up an extra kitchen in the garage in case it happened , I had a spare bathroom downstairs and I spent two weeks living in my recording studio …..


Sydney has showed that this can be addressed . The SW/ W Sydney ( working class) are the worst impacted areas and the government has thrown tons of resources there and it now has one of the highest vaccination rates .


Next we have another mistake . They quote CDC


Moreover, CDC research shows that vaccinated individuals still get infected with COVID-19 and carry just as much of the virus in their throat and nasal passage as unvaccinated individuals

“High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus,” CDC Rochelle Director Walensky noted following a Cape Cod outbreak that included mostly vaccinated individuals.

These data suggest that vaccinated individuals are still spreading the virus much like unvaccinated individuals.


Wrong , wrong , wrong .


Yes people who have been vaccinated can transmit it , but not like unvaccinated , to quote the same source CDC

“This means fully vaccinated people will likely spread the virus for less time than unvaccinated people.”

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

I skipped the next couple of paragraphs as they are moral arguments

At the end they conclude

Meanwhile, people who’ve not had COVID and choose to not get vaccinated may or may not be making an unwise decision. But if they are, they are principally putting only themselves at risk


Not correct , they are enabling the virus to spread through the community at a greater rate . While the vaccine is pretty effective at protecting the recipient it’s not 100 % , so people with underlying health issues , the elderly are still at risk of dying from this as we have seen in the current NSW outbreak .


Last thing , who is Martin Kulldorff ?


He is a Harvard professor who is “ well known antilock down advocate “

This article makes interesting reading about him

Anti-lockdown advocate appears on radio show that has featured Holocaust deniers | Coronavirus | The Guardian

One of the three co-authors ( Martin Kulldorff ) of a letter that calls for lockdowns to be abandoned in favour of herd immunity has appeared on a radio broadcast that previously featured multiple Holocaust deniers and antisemites.

In terms of a justifiable scientific argument the Article is totally flawed . ie it’s bullish…t

Is Martin Kulldorff someone who I will pay any attention to ?

Nup

Cliff

 

Can I ask a couple of questions.

1. When we get to the point of high vax levels and open borders then is there not a high chance we will contract Covid in a mild version, and then we have the antibodies/natural immunity which is good?

2. Even if a person has had Covid, how long after that is vaccination recommended?

 

Unless we come up with a vaccine that significantly cuts done the risk of transmission , we're all likely to get exposed at some time , so we'll either get a milder version or not get it at all ( I'd go with the later ).

In the Scientific field , what you're suggesting is an interesting hypothesis . is it correct ? no idea , sometimes things that appear logic end up turning out to be wrong , but I'm sure someone will do a study and find out the actual answer. over the last 18 months , many facts have been taken out of context and generalised .

A classic example of this is , that many people assume that taking probiotics after antibiotics would be a good thing . One of the worlds leading institutes into gut health ( The Weissman institute in Israel ) actually tested this theory and found that taking probiotics after antibodies delayed the return of your normal gut flora ( and none of the alternative health professionals or Pharmacies selling them will tell you that ... )

Six months .

Cliff

 

Thanks Cliff.

 

Up until recently I listened a lot to Brett Weinstein as I liked some of his takes on social issues and found him quite astute. Unfortunately, due to the incentives of audience capture, he's destroyed his reputation and died on a silly hill by questioning the efficacy and safety of COVID vaccines then doubling-down on it.

A lot of people would read that article you posted and ingest it without resistance simply based on Kulldorff's standing. As a society in the age of social media society needs better sense-making antenna. We dearly need critical thinking taught in schools as a subject on its' own so that people learn the significance of peer review and can better spot when perverse incentives are at play. With these skills they can arrive at reasoned conclusions without even having to be knowledgeable in science 'in question'. It's not a silver bullet or a general solution but it would help.

 

Well, I have family in Israel.
And there are nutcases there as well. So "study" from Israel means jack ****, just the same as other "studies" the nutcases are using.

I personally never listen to one's persons ideas or views. Never mind who much I like it.
To be honest, I don't even know who are Brett Weinstein or Kulldorff.

I could never remember names of authors of books, nor names of movie actors.
They represent nothing to me. I read stuff based on what's in written not based on who wrote it.
I tend to try to do some fact checking and see if what I read in one place align with others.

Very rarely an idea or view will be unique (in scientific areas) and will be correct.
I practice the scientific metrology and looking for verification before I subscribe to information (if it's important to me. Most of the stuff I read doesn't really matter anyway)

 

I'm not even going to pretend that I read all that. Sorry @See Change that was way too long for my attention span. But what I did get from the bit that I did read is that there's so much conflicting information out there, that it's very easy for people to not trust professionals if they are fed the wrong info.

 

he he

Thought of doing the elevator pitch version , but I could have easily made it longer

When I posted it , I knew many people would tune out , but I did want to address it thoroughly , if only for my own use . I know I'll be asked questions about these issues in the coming weeks and I wanted to work though it .

Cliff

 

I do .

Working through other peoples ideas is how i come to conclusions of whether it's correct or BS .

During the first six months or so of COVID I specifically listened to FOX news to try and understand WTF the US was doing what it was doing .

That came down to realising that many Americans are taught from an early age that their " rights " where the most important thing . I gave up trying to discussing what constitutional right was impinged by a requirement to wear a mask , and came to the conclusion that outside their right to " bear arms " " and the " right to free speech " most american's don't know what their constitutional rights are ....

Cliff

 

Even the "right to free speech" is often misused and misconstrued. The actual wording is along the lines that it allows the populous the right to speech without fear or favour "from" the government.

It doesn't give anyone the actual right to spout whatever they want - or the spread lies - or even members of the government the "right" to speak.

So they don't have the "right to speech" under any circumstances - just like they don't actually have the "right to bear arms" under any circumstances ... but that one has also be shredded of it's intent and specific wording

 

my observation is that much of what passes for public debate and reporting in the US at the moment is often misused and misconstrued ..

Cliff

 

Sadly we see so much US stuff here that many believe they also have similar 'rights'.

 

There are professionals who hold conflicting views on basically any topic imaginable, including how to respond to covid.

So many of the people you may disagree with are trusting professionals, just not those you are following.

 

This is already the case with the Covid certificate in Europe. Valid for 6 months if you've had Covid already, so plenty of people have the vax passport without vaccination.

 

At this point in time the evidence provided by the real world experience of several highly vaccinated country’s is that vaccination while lessoning symptoms of covid will not prevent transmission enough to prevent mass spread of the virus. So you are probably going to get it at some point in time vaccinated or not unless a better vaccine is created and distributed very quickly.

This in itself presents a moral and ethical dilemma re vaccine passports as their main function is to stop transmission. Falling that they become discriminatory if someone vaccinated is just as likely to transmit as someone unvaccinated even if vaccination reduces transmission somewhat.

I’m pro vaccine and pro lockdown until vaccination rates are up. I was pro passport until it became clear they don’t prevent spread.

Denmark is dropping all covid restrictions in October including any requirement to prove evidence of vaccination. They are the country to watch.

That article is agenda driven rubbish.

 

Did you know that a person that has died from covid is extremely unlikely to catch covid again?
That's my argument against vaccines and vaccine passports!

 

Agreed, but only after everyone who wants a vax has one (or two in this case) and then the virus is let rip thru the community ... only them can we be sure that the majority have had exposure and recovered or snuffed

 

Number's game.
The age of information means we can actually, quite easily, get a good gauge of what the majority of knowledgeable experts tend to think.
In science, "ideas" need proof. Proper peer-reviewed research.

 

Is that a typo or black humour ?

looks like people are reading it differently

cliff

 

They also unlikely to post stupid posts on social media nor participate in a rally against vaxx or lockdown.
So you can say that catching COVID and die from it DOES create herd immunity.