I was going to write about the FDA's idiotic booster recommendations, and then I found the perfect answer on Marginal Revolution, which I will quote in its entirety for the few readers who don't read MR every day
My first reaction upon hearing that boosters were rejected was to ask the same thing: would these same “experts” say that, because the vaccines are still effective without boosters, vaccinated persons don’t need to wear masks and can resume normal life? Of course not. They use the criterion “prevents hospitalization” for evaluating boosters (2a) but switch back to “prevents infection” when the question is masks and other restrictions. What about those that are willing to accept the tiny risk of side effects to prevent infection so that they can get back to fully normal life? The Science (TM) tells us that one can’t transmit the virus if one is never infected to begin with.
Also, one of the No votes on boosters said that he feared approval would effectively turn boosters into a mandate and change the definition of fully vaccinated. So, it appears that the overzealousness to demand vaccine mandates has actually contributed to fewer people getting access to (booster) vaccines, thus paradoxically contributing to spread. A vivid illustration of the problem with, “That which is not mandatory should be prohibited.”
The biggest problem with public health professionals continues to be (1) elevation of their own normative value judgements — namely that NPIs are no big deal no matter how long they last — which have nothing to do with scientific expertise, (2) leading them to “shade” their interpretation of data to promote their preferred behavioral outcome rather than answering positive (non-normative) questions with positive scientific statements, (3) thus undermining the credibility of public health institutions (FDA, CDC) and leading to things like vaccine hesitancy.
What happened to the idea that the FDA's job is to proclaim only whether a vaccine is safe and effective? Then if you want to take it, that's up to you? (And we could argue about even that, i.e. whether "safe" is enough, whether FDA should have authority to make something unproven illegal, etc.)
I want a booster. Pfizer wants to sell me a booster. The data say it's safe and effective. Way more effective than masks. Period.
They hypocrisy on masks vs. boosters is amazing.
Don't shed on me!
ReplyDeleteAmazing doesn't fully describe the hypocrisy. Disgusting does.
ReplyDelete> positive (non-normative) questions with positive scientific statements
ReplyDeletePositive scientific statements must be evaluated for man's life. Life is valuing. Those are positive, scientific, non-normative statements. Of course, one can reject life and the values needed for it. One can choose altruist sacrifice, common good mysticism and equity nihilism. And mindless tribalism. America's response to Covid is a virtually universal failure of Reps, Dems, Congress, the Presidents, the Feds, states and cities. What we have here is statist Pragmatism, a headless chicken with a club, swinging wildly, doing nothing and then panicing.
Looking Back on the Pandemic: What Went Wrong, What Went Right, and Why? by Dr. Amesh Adalja ,epidemiologist ,Sep 10, 2021, Ayn Rand Institute, YouTube
A Pro-Freedom Approach To Infectious Disease-Onkar Ghate, philosopher, Ayn Rand Institute, pdf.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAgree w almost everything in this post (not that it matters but still). But as with every good bit of analysis and commentary, I also focus on what is not being said/written, as that shapes the narrative and opinions as much as what is highlighted. If one refers to vaccine hesitancy (as in the MR post), let's either show some data to justify the assertion (sentence below), or at least mention other main factors that could be behind vaccine hesitancy. I don't think the hypocrisy noted here (I agree w the hypocrisy) or the "confusion" about boosters is a driver of vaccine hesitancy. We are talking about months of "hesitancy" by those who need to "do their research" before there was even talk about boosters. these are the same people who were complaining about masks when there were no vaccines, or seat belts infringing on their freedom back in the 1980s. I do think there are other factors behind that - won't get into that as per comments policy. And I don't think vaccine hesitant folks are perusing the FDA, CDC websites for information or data on RCTs, etc.
ReplyDelete"undermining the credibility of public health institutions (FDA, CDC) and leading to things like vaccine hesitancy."
I am one who is hesitant because I cannot get good information. I had COVID in Nov and finally got one vaccine in August. Do I need the second shot? Is it worth the risk? I don’t know because there is little or no evidence on whether the vaccines actually help those who have been sick and recovered.
DeleteI am one who is hesitant because I cannot get good information. I had COVID in Nov and finally got one vaccine in August. Do I need the second shot? Is it worth the risk? I don’t know because there is little or no evidence on whether the vaccines actually help those who have been sick and recovered.
DeleteQED
ReplyDeleteThe nattering has omitted the notion that we become safe, and able to return to "normal" life, when the virus becomes unable to amplify because the whole world is sufficiently immune as a result of vaccination. The base discussion about booster jabs concerns where a limited supply should be consumed.
ReplyDelete--E5
This recommendation is a consequence of the government policy of insisting on "free vaccines for everyone." The government won't approve the booster and allow Pfizer to sell it to those who are willing to pay because that wouldn't be "equitable" but doesn't want to approve it and provide free boosters to all comers.
ReplyDeleteBoosters are more effective than masks, but that's not saying much. To say that the data supports boosters is to beg the question; that's what the FDA is supposed to decide.
ReplyDeleteThe FDA actually *is* just proclaiming whether boosters are "safe and effective". But those two things aren't binary, so they're doing as we economists say they should: they're making a tradeoff. Boosters, like any shot, are not completely safe. Nor are they completely effective. The question is whether the small risk of a serious side effect, and the large risk of a small side effect, is worth the reduction in disease probability. The answer isn't obvious.
I do agree that the FDA has done more harm than good over its history. We ought to change its role to be purely informational: it would give an official opinion, and then consumers, doctors, and insurance companies could decide whether to use an unapproved drug or not.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete