Thread by @angryhacademic

Im watching #UnvaccinatedDocumentary and prior to having a #vaccineinjury i would have been right on board with Hannah Fry.

But theres so far been a couple things that i realise are scientific narratives that arent really true

1. Fry said the ONLY way we know something is caused by the vaccine is monitoring it to see if it occurs above expected levels

This isnt true & a mathematician shouldve been more accurate. Such studies determine whether POPULATION risk is increased (still not necessarily causal)

But do not tell us whether INDIVIDUAL harm is causal.

It actually doesnt matter at a population level for individuals, which makes risk quantification difficult.

Eg i might be the only UK vax injured with pulmonary emboli

The lack of population increase does not mitigate the fact that this did happen to me because of the vaccine

2. Asking "how can you be sure that was the vaccine" is a valid scientific question, BUT so is "how can you be sure it is NOT from the vaccine"

Science is supposed to be evidence based and if no one is researching us properly then both sides of the question need to be explored; one cant be assumed. This is standard research methods: null (vax = no side effect) vs alternative (vax = X side effect) hypothesis

Fry says "I just dont think its enough to say its happening a lot" which is correct based on the way we currently collect data, rife with flaws. We actually don't know yet some of these risks, partly cos of denial of links, and partly cos drs wont test for what they dont expect

(Among other things)

3. Ignoring being reduced to sugary sweet, the jelly beans was a good visual. A key missing point though is that a vaccine is a DELIBERATE act, infection (usually) isnt

If you get ill from a disease, its not necessarily unexpected. What Fry doesnt discuss is that if you are someone who gets an adverse vaccine reaction, especially one that isnt recognised, there'll most likely be no proper medical support for you, but a whole heap of gaslighting

Thats me off to bed so il just end on my general impression so far: Fry, like many (including past me) are taking the data very literally without appreciating the limitations. She also seems to be using these data to convince some folk who have fundamentally different world views

By that, i mean n-of-1 empathy at their core, rather than necessarily seeing the population (statistical) perspective.

We often see emotions and data as opposite but i think its a false dichotomy

Fry also needs to quantify the risks presented in terms of infection ± vaccine since vaccines no longer prevent infection

TBC maybe tomorrow...goodnight folks

someone pointed out my comment that vaccines no longer prevent infection isn't technically true, citing the ONS data. my comment was exaggerated (was just off to bed, my bad) so it's only right i correct that error

https://twitter.com/angryhacademic/status/1550600792322805760

Ok back at it...we start at vaccines being rushed. Agree with Fry that people entrenched in their beliefs shut down convos that contradict their views. This is something imo we can all work on

I oft get shit if i tweet something good about vaccines & shit if i talk side effects

Luca discusses the vaxd/unvaxd divide. Vax injuries would be much easier to deal with without this divide

Theyre going to meet some vaccines scientists. I highly doubt the vaccine scientists are aware of things like the long covid type reactions some of us are having

Prof Finn said if we keep getting mild variants that would be fine. Sorry but there is no mild covid. Each infection risks multisystem damage, and we see increased risk of stroke, diabetes etc a year post infection.

Fwiw, i dont think the vaccines were rushed per se. If we took longer to develop them, the long covid like side effects still wouldn't have shown up in trials as the same number of participants would have been used (most reactions start within a week, based on a uk survey)

The race issues with vaccines, science history, and medicine is such an important discussion. Im glad this has been featured.

One person said to Fry they dont feel they can have an informed conversation with her. I can understand why

As described above, even beyond the sense of academic arrogance, theres fundamentally different world views.

When someone is representing vaccine harms in jelly beans, its hard to see that they have the same level of empathy as you.

(FTR: i dont think scientists lack empathy..

...rather we see the world slightly differently. Some harm to reduce even more harm is viewed positively. Whereas folks on the show i think see the vax as a deliberate risk, then met with "youre the unlucky jelly bean" if you get hurt)

I am not proof reading these tweets, i hope they make sense 🤣🤣

Fry comments on the lack of info isnt a problem, but the ocean of misinformation is. Problem is that due to the pro/anti divide, anything critical gets flagged, science communicators double down etc. Theres misinformation on both "sides"

Whilst i agree we need to tackle misinformation (dont ask me how, but do look at Finlands model) and the small group who seem to start most of it, we also need to be open to new info and not assume the current consensus is correct and up to date.

Im fed up of being called a stupid sheep on one side, then antivax fearmongerer on the other. Its one sided of Fry to only talk about the shitty behaviour from those who spread antivax misinformation.

Lots of us need to reflect on our behaviour the last 2 years

I do agree some of the misinformation that has gone round has been horrific though

Fry has just been called out on trying to discuss ukraine, because that is perceived to be discrediting the groups views on the vax.

Fair point, though equally i can see Frys reasoning too. Both often fuelled by mistrust

One person just raised the point i made above to the Full Fact chap about shittery on both sides. FF chap essentially said it was disproportionate, esp professionals posting demonstrably untrue things.

Im on board with this tbh but

On the flipside ive seen people instantly dismiss my own (and others) vax reactions, with zero understanding of the research behind it all.

I think in terms of outright misinfo it is disproportionately weighted towards those sharing harms of vaccines

But the folk in this show are largely not talking about unevidenced harms. Theyre talking about currently unrecognised side effects like seizures and gait changes, that dont get spoken about but those in the community are all too aware of

Since these risks are not recognised, as demonstrated by this show, we arent in a position to quantify risks.

FF chap makes a great points re balance of sharing our own ideas whilst acknowledging these can cause harm

FF chap also makes a great point that fact checkers are utilising free speech. If youre say something that isnt supported by evidence, others have the right to correct you. This helps us all make informed decisions. 👍🏻 👍🏻👍🏻

Im glad Fry is discussing the devastating risks of covid. I see a lot of folks attributing things to vaccines now, but we cant forget how rife and dangerous even mild covid is. Vaccine risks imo need to be balanced against covid risks

And remember for both, many will come out unscathed. More covid patients so far seem to come out harmed.

Its hard to tease out some effects now as lots of folk have had both vaccines and infection

WHY ARE THERE NO MASKS IN THE HOSPITAL?!

Hearing the pressure hospitals have been under is devastating

#SavetheNHS #NHSPay15

Fry is talking to the long covid sufferer of the group. No discussion in this whole show how maybe ~20 % long covid patients get worse with a vaccine...

Ive spoken above about n-of-1 empathy and heres a contradiction from the group member: risking lives of young people to save older people is not ethical or moral.

I think this is a good demonstration of how many layers such decisions penetrate

To me, its seems odd to say 1 life is more important than another, that doesnt seem right to me. But it seems in this persons decision making framework, a young life ruined from a vax is less acceptable than and older person dying of disease

They are understandably swayed by their friend with a terrible vac reaction, knowing that could happen to them.

No amount of data and statistics is likely to overcome that imo.

Glad they acknowledged both sides have emotional stories though

Seems some folk have become more aware of misinformation and more open to the idea of getting a covid vaccine. Maybe we need to do more one on one chats. Despite my reservations about Frys approach at the beginning of the thread, clearly its not been wholly ineffective

Good points also raised: many of us trust big pharma with paracetamol and trust the medical establishment with (in this case) child birth.

Though i think its worth remembering how badly chronic/rare/vax injured illness patients get treated

Guy at the end makes a fab point: giving people the negatives AND the positives they can make an informed choice.

This is where i think public health and science communication has gome wrong with covid vaccines

@P_H_S_Official

Its paternalistic to think we cant weigh up risks, and it actively fuels conspiracy

Fry ends by saying she didnt realise how complex the issue is. I think a lot of science communication folk dont understand this too

Theres a sense of those who disagree being stupid or ill informed, but theres often reasons to mistrust, and not a lack of information (including from what should be reputable sources like doctors and scientists)

Despite a frustrating start to the show, i think a lot of good points were raised. And an important message at the end: we need to listen to each other more

Take care folks x

@FryRsquared fancy having a chat to a #vaccineinjured #NHS #SARSCoV2 researcher (me!)?