Of all the critiques of boosters, this seems like the worst/weirdest one.

Boosters would help us get back to normal—see family and friends more, pursue a wider range of social activities—but for some reason we don't want that?

Also, empirically, most people *have* resumed their social lives. Even with Delta concerns, restaurant reservations are ~90-95% of what they were pre-pandemic, for instance. Air travel is back to ~80% of pre-pandemic norms.


I can't think of a better example of elites being in a bubble detached from the rest of society than the attitude that people are just so *silly* and *naive* for wanting to get back to normal and/or will happily abide another year of sharply limiting in-person socialization.
The better argument (I don't know that I agree, but it at least recognizes people's strong desire for normalcy) is the opposite one. That people *can* get back to ~normal because vaccines << hospitalizations/deaths so we can take our time figuring out how to boost the right way.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Nate Silver

Nate Silver Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NateSilver538

13 Sep
What I find frustrating about this (in agreement with Dr. Topol) is that it's *very* easy to move the bar for what constitutes "robust evidence". And there's been a lot of inconsistency about this, with respect to boosters.
There is *not* robust evidence that vaccine boosters trade off with first doses elsewhere. It is a plausible theory, lacking evidence.

The data on waning immunity may not be as robust as we'd like, but it's no less robust than the anti-booster arguments.

There's also inconsistency re: breakthrough infections. Anti-booster folks say they don't matter much since severe outcomes are being prevented. OTOH, a lot of public health messaging has implied breakthroughs do matter since they can potentially transmit to others.
Read 4 tweets
8 Sep
OK, but why are Americans fearful of breakthroughs? I'd suggest it's largely because of the mixed messages they're hearing from public health officials and the media, which often imply that vaccinated people should behave with a *lot* of caution rather than "returning to normal".
If two-thirds of vaccinated infectious disease experts won't eat indoors at a restaurant, and almost half won't attend an *outdoor* sporting event, then of course people reading that are going to think breakthroughs are a big deal and of course they'll want boosters.
BTW, part of the poor media messaging—see below—is in exaggerating how easily vaccinated people transmit. They're both much less likely to get COVID *and* less likely to transmit if they do. Being vaccinated offers unvaccinated household members (e.g. kids) a LOT of protection.
Read 4 tweets
23 Aug
It's self-destructive more than self-interested. Pretty decent chance Newsom gets recalled. Democrats could potentially keep the seat if they urged their voters to consolidate behind an alternative Democrat but instead they're telling them not to vote on the replacement!
Pretty much always, if someone tells you not to vote, they are giving you bad advice. If you live in California and leave the recall line blank, you are partly disenfranchising yourself and are making a mistake.
To be clear, this *might* be in the best interest of Newsom—on the unproven and but at least vaguely plausible notion that voters might be more likely to vote "yes" on the recall if there's another D to vote for—but it's likely not in the best interests of the Democratic Party.
Read 5 tweets
20 Aug
If nearly half of *vaccinated* people are "avoiding other people as much as possible" then public health and media messaging about the risks COVID poses to vaccinated people has been badly miscalibrated.

apnorc.org/projects/major… Image
I'm a little skeptical of this result, since it doesn't match all sorts of observational data (e.g. restaurant reservations or air traffic numbers) showing people's social activities back to maybe 80-90% of pre-pandemic levels. So maybe some social desirability bias. But still.
The fact that vaccines **greatly** reduce severe outcomes from COVID is often treated as a footnote or afterthought, when it has profound implications both for society's response to COVID and for your personal risk calculus.
Read 4 tweets
13 Aug
Seeing arguments that claim there is a trade-off between giving people 1st/2nd doses and giving people a booster shot.

That is EXTREMELY dubious in the US where we are awash in vaccines and have already ordered enough additional vax to cover boosters + kids <12 + some left over.
Is there a trade off with vaccines for other counties? I don't know, but as a matter of theory, basic economics would suggest that increased demand will increase supply. And as a matter of practice, elected officials are going to look to protect their own citizens first.
A related bad argument I'm seeing lately is that e.g. "the US is "becoming too reliant on one tool, vaccines".

Well, that's because vaccines are BY FAR the best tool. They go MUCH FURTHER than others toward allowing us to resume normal life while GREATLY reducing COVID harms.
Read 4 tweets
3 Aug
The sample size is this non peer reviewed study is 79 vaccinated people (corrected, misread as 83 before) and completely lacks the statistical power to differentiate between vaccinated and unvaccinanted people.
Also as in the Provincetown study it's a convenience sample, meaning people who chose to be tested, and not a random sample of all infections. That likely biases the sample toward more severe infections since people with more severe symptoms are more likely to seek out testing.
Another big statistical issue in these studies (at least the Wisconsin one) is that they have truncated samples. People with high Ct values (higher Ct = harder to find virus) are eliminated from the comparison because it's not clear they can be considered "infected".
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!