WHY IT'S WRONG TO MAKE ANALOGIES WITH ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE RE: COVID, AND WHY VACCINES DON'T CREATE VARIANTS
The principle:
- antibiotics & vaccine select for variants but don't create them; what creates them is transmission
This matters because…
(short thread)
2/ Antibiotics are used after symptoms, where millions of viruses are already in the body, and some can *already have mutated* to escape the antibiotic (and thus get selected), whereas vaccines are already there before the virus that got in can reproduce
3/ Also, drugs are more specific in the enzymes or proteins that they can attack, whereas vaccines lead to many times of antibodies, casting a wider net.
4/ So: vaccines don't create variants; transmission does.
And vaccines help reducing that. And that's one reason reducing transmission is important.
2/ I want policemen who abuse their powers to be fired, and reasonings such as the above get into the way of that, seeming to imply that laws define humanity – a very dangerous premise.
But humanity isn’t determined by rules; it’s what happens regardless of the rules.
3/ Reasonings such as the above are divisive, focusing on partisanship & putting values eg humanity on the sidelines.
I hate the usual advice of sandwiching feedback (say something good, then something bad, then something good). It created a generation of people who think they are good at giving feedback just because they're sandwiching it – with terrible results
Here is some better advice
1/N
First of all, avoid sandwiching.
If people know about it, the moment they hear you say something good, they'll roll their eyes, think "here comes the bad part", and disconnect.
This is bad:
- it prevents listening
- they don't trust the "good part,” thus not getting motivated
Second advice: BE SPECIFIC.
Generic feedback, such as "your presentation was boring", gets taken personally thus ignored.
Instead, specific feedback, such as "there was too much text in your presentation", has more chances of being listened to.
A good question I received today. Let's assume that "COVID is there to stay" and "the vaccination campaign completed" but "there's still breakthrough cases."
Does it matter whether there's a lot of virus circulating (compared to little)?
In other words, would it still pay to be cautious? (Not talking about lockdowns, of course, but about wearing masks on public transport and similar measures.)
My intuition would be: it matters, because
- fewer cases → fewer hospitalizations (and deaths), even if hospitalization rates are low
- fewer cases → lower risk of variants
- lower viral load → better outcomes after infection
2/ The referenced tweet. (Note that this doesn’t mean vaccines are ineffective. They’re very effective at preventing severe illness. The question is how much they stop transmission when relied too much upon.)
3/ I meant “the effectiveness of vaccine-only-entrance” towards containing transmission (which is important to protect both the unvaccinated & few unlucky vaccinated, and reduce the likelihood of variants)
It’s prob an effective measure re: reducing hospitalizations and deaths
3/ To clarify the previous point: imagine a boat with 50 vaccinated and 500 unvaccinated; 5 of each are in the ICU, and 2 of each die. Does it mean that the vaccine offers no excess protection, because the ratio "vax deaths / vax in ICU" is the same as novax's?
Make a FAQ on the risks of COVID vaccines that clearly answers:
- risks & unknowns for a teenager
- …for a 30 yo
- …for ladies planning a pregnancy
- how we know that
Things that many people hesitant about the vaccination DON'T care about:
- how mRNA works
- how safe doctors think it is
- if the average person is better off vaccinating
Things they want to know:
- short- and long-term risks
- how probable for people like them
- how do we know