My thoughts on "following the science"

utbcw wrote:

You say, “I might be wrong, but I will stand by my original opinion.”

Your original opinion is still wrong.

You state that people should certainly “consider the suggestions of experts who know more about this than this than you do.”

We people who follow the science are doing exactly what we say we are doing. We are following, not “considering”, the recommendations, not “ suggestions,” of scientists, not “experts who know more than you do,” (and certainly not right wing politicians.) And we do not suggest science is a “single monolithic binary, right answer” but rather we understand science to be what it is: the consensus of the Scientific community.

And that consensus is to get vaccinated, wear masks, and social distance, not do our own individual “evaluation of acceptable levels of risk.”

I respect your perspective, but I don't share it.

Just to make sure, you are saying that when presented with a consensus from the scientific community regarding how individuals should behave, individuals ought to follow that consensus, disregarding any other factors.

This is a completely rational and consistent perspective. I don't think that you are recognizing the fact that your perspective reflects your implicit decision regarding an "evaluation of acceptable levels of risk." You just base your evaluation on the consensus of science.

It's possible, though, that I'm misreading you. You might mean that you disagree with the evaluation of the scientific community but that you follow the recommendations anyway because you feel that is the best way to be a member of society or eradicate the disease or protect certain groups, etc. Again, a completely rational and consistent perspective. And, again, it is reflective of an implicit decision regarding risk factors (to yourself, others...society... etc).

All I'm asking is that policy recommendations be presented as decisions to be hashed out between members of society rather than as the inevitable results of "the science."

In the past, it was always possible for me to get a flu shot. It was my choice to get a flu shot or not. If I did not get a flu shot, I was in greater danger of getting the flu. This also increased the chances that I might pass the flu on to a vulnerable member of society. But of course, I also had the choice to wear a mask, to prevent that from happening. Vulnerable members of society also had this range of choices available to them. None of these things was ever mandated before.

The risk of the pandemic spiraling out of control has been deemed too high to allow people to make their own decisions. Various means have been implemented in order to coerce people to comply with getting shots and wearing masks. Given the potential danger, even if you disagree with the means of coercion, it can be seen as a rational (even if you are repelled by it on other grounds) response given the circumstances.

Here's what I'd like to know: what is the level of risk that makes "the consensus of the scientific community" say we must do these things for Covid, but we don't have to for the annual flu. Lots of people die every year from the flu. Those deaths seem to be squarely on the shoulders of "the science" who deemed them not worth saving. How many lives could have been saved if we had only mandated flu vaccines and masking years ago? Yes, I understand that there is a difference in scale; I just want someone to tell me what the scale of a sickness needs to be in order to justify coercive measures regulating vaccines, masking, and whether or not people can run a business or open a school. So far all I get is: "the science" knows it when it sees it.

This really has been a good discussion, but I'm getting repetitive. Thanks everyone.

maybe delete this? wrote:

Just to make sure, you are saying that when presented with a consensus from the scientific community regarding how individuals should behave, individuals ought to follow that consensus, disregarding any other factors.

I think you're confusing "the science", "public health policy", and "individual decisions".

"The science" can inform both "public health policy" and "individual decisions", but by itself it is only the body of knowledge that describes our understanding of some phenomena. "The science" is a factor in decision making, but it does not mandate a particular decision, rather it suggests outcome probabilities following from a particular decision.

What I believe most are arguing about, whether the say so explicitly or not, is where the line should be drawn between public policy and individual choice. The nominal goal of public policy is to optimize in some sense the public good whereas individual choices are essentially self-centric.

As an example, it has long been and remains clear from "the science" that the public health cost of Covid is at least an order of magnitude greater than that of the seasonal flu which forms the justification of the public health decisions which have been made by the various authorities. We can all acknowledge that there is uncertainty around our body of knowledge, "the science", and that decisions, both public and private, informed by this body of knowledge have a measure of subjectivity. Regardless, I would hope that all would agree with the necessity of a public health authority with the ability to make and enforce evidence supported communal health policy even as we may disagree greatly with the policy specifics.

To directly address the question, "What level of risk is acceptable?", I would say that it is a subjective communal decision, but one can point to the existence of quantitative metric driven implementations of Covid public policy, for example things like restrictions on elective surgeries when a hospital has reached some percent of capacity with Covid cases. I like this sort of metric driven approach as policy.

Jocebert wrote:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate

More than three times as many counties voted for Trump; thus, fewer Trump county residents died from Covid.

Monkeys Skyping wrote:

maybe delete this? wrote:

Just to make sure, you are saying that when presented with a consensus from the scientific community regarding how individuals should behave, individuals ought to follow that consensus, disregarding any other factors.

I think you're confusing "the science", "public health policy", and "individual decisions".

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Everything you say makes sense to me, except the opening line. I don't think I'm confused about those things. The idea behind my original post was exactly that fact... that these things are different. I was expressing my frustration with being told to "follow the science" when I want to discuss public policy. I feel like we're saying essentially the same thing. You and I agree that the data science offers helps to inform our decisions, both at the public health level and at the individual level. I just want the decisions by public health officials to be presented as decisions made by people rather than as "the science." When "public health officials" say that this or that behavior is necessary/prohibited because of "the science," they're not really saying anything that makes sense. What "science" exactly triggers mandate X? What "science" will trigger the repeal of mandate X?

My feeling is that, as I said above, no one can/will/wants to answer those questions. Saying "follow the science" is a way to avoid discussing these things. This is not good for public health officials and it is not good for individuals.

For example, how can public health officials justify NOT mandating masks and shots during flu season? Why should I be free to endanger grandma with the flu? What is the acceptable dead-grandma metric? Who decided the metric? Could we discuss the metric? Can I vote the metric maker out of public health office if I disagree with the metric? Does a metric even exist?

"Follow the science" does not answer these questions. It stifles discussion. It says "Trust the experts to control the flow of dead grandmas. After all, they're trained in dead-grandma management. They're professionals. It's really none of your business and you couldn't possibly understand it anyway."

maybe delete this? wrote:

The risk of getting Covid if you are unvaccinated is non-zero.

The risk of getting Covid if you are vaccinated is non-zero.

The risk of a complication from getting a vaccine is non-zero.

BS

The risk of getting Covid if you are unvaccinated is pretty high.

The risk of getting Covid if you are vaccinated is very low.

The risk of a complication from getting a vaccine is even lower.

DEATHS, that’s what counts here folks.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate

Let’s talk about deaths.

Sir Thinksalot wrote:

Jocebert wrote:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/05/1059828993/data-vaccine-misinformation-trump-counties-covid-death-rate

More than three times as many counties voted for Trump; thus, fewer Trump county residents died from Covid.

I really hope that comment is a joke. Tell me you’re not that effing stupid.

smartmaskman wrote:

This is where you are wrong. You see vaccines are proven to be effective to stop coronavirus from mutating and stop the strains from developing. Don't be an anti vaxxer, the reason why these new variants are coming is because they are coming from countries that have a large proportion of people unvaccinated, the delta variant came from India with less then 1% of that country vaccinated back then and the Omnicron variant came from South Africa with not a very high vaccination rate. So please don't spread misinformation about Coronavirus that makes you a super spreader.

This is where you are wrong, according to this paper

the occurrence and frequency of vaccine-resistant mutations correlate strongly with the vaccination rates in Europe and America

Don't be an anti sciencer

Wow. An actual "discussion"! How refreshing.

My two cents: If you have to protect lives, through public policy, it makes sense that those decisions are based on facts, not popular opinion. But we all know that those 'facts' take a long time to mature. A policy maker can't rely solely on limited and evolving 'facts' or 'scientific consensus' when presented with a novel virus that is under researched and spreads so fast that hospitals are overwhelmed.

I don't agree that there should ever be government 'mandates' over what people do in their own bodies. Government has no right to cross that line. But it certainly can make things inconvenient for those who's health choices easily negatively affect others. The policy conundrum comes down to how "inconvenient" things have to be before being defined as "mandated". It's not just a matter of governors making blanket policy, but it can be all the businesses, school admins., stores, etc. So, I suspect that everyone is looking out for someone to delineate just how much the 'squeezed out' people are expected to tolerate. If it all hinges on overwhelmed health care systems, then maybe that weak link should be fixed. Relying on 'just in time' hospital ICU's obviously doesn't work during a pandemic.

maybe delete this? wrote:

smartmaskman wrote:

This is where you are wrong. You see vaccines are proven to be effective to stop coronavirus from mutating and stop the strains from developing. Don't be an anti vaxxer, the reason why these new variants are coming is because they are coming from countries that have a large proportion of people unvaccinated, the delta variant came from India with less then 1% of that country vaccinated back then and the Omnicron variant came from South Africa with not a very high vaccination rate. So please don't spread misinformation about Coronavirus that makes you a super spreader.

There can be no misinformation about the Coronavirus in my post because I never mentioned any information about Coronavirus in my post.

I am not an anti vaxxer.

I think you entirely misunderstood my post.

You clearly mentioned "COVID", so quit with that. Mostly your post was a rambling mess, so it's not really possible to determine what you meant by posting it. The only clear point that was made is that you are not a good writer.

I go to sleep everyday and hope people will just stop talking about it. I've read both sides of the argument, I can see how each argument is fair. But eventually we're gonna have to take the training wheels off. Eventually you're gonna have to take the rails off if you wanna bowl properly. Covid hasn't impacted my life since me and my kids got it. The the police showed up at my house to make sure I was at home, apparently the they were not informed we were all highly infested with covid lol. Covid hasn't impacted my life much at all really, but I work a dangerous job and could quite literally die any minute by various means, I could even get killed driving in the snow on my way to work. Those are the things I'm worried about not covid

following data wrote:

smartmaskman wrote:

This is where you are wrong. You see vaccines are proven to be effective to stop coronavirus from mutating and stop the strains from developing. Don't be an anti vaxxer, the reason why these new variants are coming is because they are coming from countries that have a large proportion of people unvaccinated, the delta variant came from India with less then 1% of that country vaccinated back then and the Omnicron variant came from South Africa with not a very high vaccination rate. So please don't spread misinformation about Coronavirus that makes you a super spreader.

This is where you are wrong, according to this paper

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c03380

the occurrence and frequency of vaccine-resistant mutations correlate strongly with the vaccination rates in Europe and America

Don't be an anti sciencer

This surely is a catch-22 ? I.e in a vaccinated population, only strains that aren't dealt with by the vaccine will ultimately dominate. That doesn't necessarily mean it's good or bad (and I think the implication in the study is that actually it's better, as the breakthrough has less infectivity, but some bit's are a bit ambiguous or not clear in the abstract).

Vaccines will always mutate whatever, but the less cases (i.e from the vaccine), the less frequently it will mutate (assuming all other things equal) ?

The best thing that could probably happen is that we get a weak strain dominate that causes no hospitalisations and we can get on with life easier.

Now, one of the things very few people seem to mention, is that actually I think there's probably more harm done from avoiding people (socially distanced etc), and not catching normal bugs and letting ones body develop naturally which is the counter side of not getting vaccinated. The more folks get vaccinated, the more life goes back to normal, the more we start developing naturally again. (Naturally unless you think the vaccines are gonna have large side effects in the future).

Thanks for joining the discussion. Your response touches on a lot of different areas and I think all of them area worthy of exploration, but I'll just address the one that I think is most pertinent to the ideas in the original post.

As an individual in a free society, one position you hold is that government should be limited in (at least) one particular area: "I don't agree that there should ever be government 'mandates' over what people do in their own bodies. Government has no right to cross that line."

So, in a way, a lot of this thread is already way past your acceptable limit. Whether I agree or disagree with you on this point is not really important. It's useful to let people know where you're coming from. I think a lot of people would generally agree with you, but a least a portion of those might be willing to discuss crossing that line in an emergency situation (like a pandemic). As a society, we often have this type of discussion regarding the scope of government authority, and I think it's healthy to do so.

You come closer to the original post when you say "I suspect that everyone is looking out for someone to delineate just how much the 'squeezed out' people are expected to tolerate." I wholeheartedly agree. The fact that this policy or that policy is triggered or rolled back suggests that someone somewhere is "delineating" this level of acceptable risk for us.

But if we don't know where the lines are, we cannot have a rational discussion as a society about the acceptability of those lines as thresholds for implementing policies.

maybe delete this? wrote:

Seen from this angle, people who decide not to get the vaccine because there is a possibility of complications are actually acting in a scientific manner. According to scientific evidence, the risk of complications from a vaccine is not zero. They have decided that they do not want to take that risk.

It's better to jump out of a plane without a parachute because you could be strangled by the lines on the way down. Best to avoid that risk!

following data wrote:

smartmaskman wrote:

This is where you are wrong. You see vaccines are proven to be effective to stop coronavirus from mutating and stop the strains from developing. Don't be an anti vaxxer, the reason why these new variants are coming is because they are coming from countries that have a large proportion of people unvaccinated, the delta variant came from India with less then 1% of that country vaccinated back then and the Omnicron variant came from South Africa with not a very high vaccination rate. So please don't spread misinformation about Coronavirus that makes you a super spreader.

This is where you are wrong, according to this paper

the occurrence and frequency of vaccine-resistant mutations correlate strongly with the vaccination rates in Europe and America

Don't be an anti sciencer

Not sure that paper is that meaningful in light of the fact that the most dominant strain (Delta) and Omicron both emerged from low vax, high transmission places.

Certainly you may select for a few partially (minor) resistant mutants here and there as the virus spreads through a mostly vaccinated population, but all the evidence points to new, dominant, and dangerous variants arising under high-transmission paradigms.

This makes sense on a molecular level as you need a LOT of replications to explore the sequence space to get a spike protein with as many mutations as omicron.

maybe delete this? wrote:

Here's what I'd like to know: what is the level of risk that makes "the consensus of the scientific community" say we must do these things for Covid, but we don't have to for the annual flu. Lots of people die every year from the flu. Those deaths seem to be squarely on the shoulders of "the science" who deemed them not worth saving. How many lives could have been saved if we had only mandated flu vaccines and masking years ago? Yes, I understand that there is a difference in scale; I just want someone to tell me what the scale of a sickness needs to be in order to justify coercive measures regulating vaccines, masking, and whether or not people can run a business or open a school. So far all I get is: "the science" knows it when it sees it.

Well, COVID is killing at ~10X the rate of the flu right now. So the scale of sickness needed to justify mitigation and vaccination mandates is somewhere between 1X and 10X the flu. Probably closer to 10X because most people don't seem to care during particularly bad flu seasons that kill 2-3X the average of the flu.

Harambe wrote:

maybe delete this? wrote:

Seen from this angle, people who decide not to get the vaccine because there is a possibility of complications are actually acting in a scientific manner. According to scientific evidence, the risk of complications from a vaccine is not zero. They have decided that they do not want to take that risk.

It's better to jump out of a plane without a parachute because you could be strangled by the lines on the way down. Best to avoid that risk!

😁

Personally, I would choose to take my chances with the parachute. That seems to be the less risky of the two options. The situation is simple, and the consequences transparent.

Most people most of the time in most situations given choice A or B and being told of the relative risks and consequences choose the least risky option, but not always. Everyday, people choose to engage in optional behaviors that are risky. People also avoid behaviors that are clearly beneficial to them. In my opinion, one of the joys of living in a free society is the freedom to to make those decisions. If the government wants to limit my ability to do so, I'm open to that, but I want to know why and for how long. I grant that this can be difficult because very few situations are as simple and transparent as the one you offered. "Difficult" does not mean we shouldn't do it anyway.

Your metaphor illustrates the concept I discussed in an earlier post: the idea that we ought to always choose (or even mandate) the behavior of least risk. I granted that this is rational. I often follow this principle.

But, Harambe, according to that same principle, you should not even be in the plane in the first place. You put yourself at risk when you could have just stayed home. (But not in the bathroom... too many accidents waiting to happen!)

maybe delete this? wrote:

But, Harambe, according to that same principle, you should not even be in the plane in the first place. You put yourself at risk when you could have just stayed home. (But not in the bathroom... too many accidents waiting to happen!)

It's all risk: reward. With COVID, the risk of infection is near 100% with the high transmissiblity of Delta (and Omicron) over the next year if you are unvaxxed unless you take -extreme- measures to avoid contact with others.

Or, you mitigate the risk by taking the vaccine.

Your analogy works if flying on a plane brings you no benefit to offset the small risk of crash, yes? If you aren't going anywhere useful, you don't enjoy flying, etc, then sure, getting on the plane is -only- exposing yourself to extra risk!

😁 Thank you. You are often maligned on Covid threads, but you you always play fair.

And thank you again for trying to answer that question with an actual (though pretty broad) number.

Your observation that "most people don't seem to care during particularly bad flu seasons that kill 2-3X the average of the flu" is really interesting. Five years ago, grandma dies of the flu and no one cares. This is one of the reasons why I think we need to have this discussion.

Why was flu-grandma not worth saving but Covid-grandma is?

If our new policy is going to be "if we can mitigate risk, we are obligated as a society to do so by mandating and/or prohibiting certain behaviors," that would represent a fundamental change in the way we live our lives.

Can we go back to allowing flu deaths? If not, well... can we allow obesity deaths? Deaths due to alcohol?

I just hope that if we end up mandating behaviors based on the principle of maximum risk avoidance, we do so with our eyes open. Let's come right out and embrace the concept. "That behavior which is unnecessary is prohibited if, by not engaging in said behavior, the risk of bad stuff is thereby lowered by any amount." And the corollary "That behavior which decreases risk by any amount is mandated" should be included.

The alternative would require a politician to stand up and say: "You know what? Actually, these grandmas over here are worthy of saving, but those other ones? Not so much." Hard to imagine that happening. More likely they'll just pretend it's not a decision. They are, after all, just "following the science."