What you mentioned at the start is textbook case of attribution bias. The observations mentioned by the public (to be fair, grossly exaggerated thanks to the MSM you think I am so fond of) are known to the academic field and were refuted using proper statistical analysis. There were some valuable insights thanks to the public, for example VIIT due to AstraZeneca. This is a vaccine I was quickly not very fond of. Its risk-to-benefit profile is still very good, but 1) we have better alternatives with pfizer and moderna and 2) there is an ethical problem to introducing a vaccine with a known hazard to patients that are considered healthy prior to vaccination. We accept certain risks in patients with a medical complaint (i.e., we accept the risk of nephrotoxicity for the patient with a headache who receives an NSAID), and the more ill a patient becomes, the higher risk becomes acceptable (i.e., immunomodulation in patients with malignancy). A non-ill patient receiving a vaccine that is more likely to help general population's health rather than health at an individual level (although that is still improved) accepts little risk. Historically, vaccines require a very good safety profile before implementation because of this ethical problem. Hence, I was against the continuation of AstraZeneca, although its risk-benefit profile was still very positive. Regardless, the public's scrutiny was very often unjustified. Similarly, the public's hailing of a treatment did not always justify the treatment, for pretty much the same reasons. People in the US literally fought over Ivermectin even after its effect was disproven. NB it's popularity presumably stems for its in vitro effect on viral load. Studies showed zero clinical difference in several different populations (and in this context, population is not just age, it is also disease severity and vaccination status). Some studies showed safe usage, which in general is true, but this does not mean zero risk.
I had replied to the rest of your content, but my post was dismissed because the topic moved as I was typing it.
Forgive me that I am unwilling to spend another 20 minutes >.> The one thing I will still respond to is that I am a bit disappointed in your so-manieth "you think that xyz" statement and turn out to be dead wrong about what I think. Please stop assuming what I think and if you must do so, be man enough to apologize when I correct you. I do not think the people are the leader. Next time, try phrasing it something like "am I correct to assume that ..." or "do you think that..."?
I failed to quote so you wouldn't get a notification. Here it is.
This post was edited by Leeevee on Jul 31 2024 01:08pm