I see data that concludes it’s better to NOT get double-vaccinated (in 2023), at least for large demographics:
vaccines can cause harm… and at least in some manners, to large demographics, are more dangerous than covid:
1(“the risk of myocarditis was higher after vaccination than SARS-CoV-2 infection”); 2(“In boys with prior infection and no comorbidities, even one dose carried more risk than benefit”).
~90% have had covid; and I see no evidence that someone who had a recent strain of covid (who has natural immunity), should now get double vaccinated (which was based on older strains)
What (counterfactual-inclusive) data leads EA to recommend that all attendees should now get double vaccinated in 2023? [EDIT: it seems EA changed the wording on their page today, perhaps as a result of me posting this. See older version here if interested.]
If the benefit does exist, and is slight in one direction… for the population as a whole… is that enough for EA to make such a recommendation for all individual attendees?
If the benefit was slight in the opposite direction (which I personally think it is), would EA then publicly recommend all attendees who have not yet been vaccinated, to continue to NOT get vaccinated?
Out of curiosity—does CEA, or any orgs which it supports or is affiliated with, receive donations from pharmaceutical companies?
This may not seem like a big deal.
To me, it is a (potential) example of EA being wrong, about something which is both… fairly basic; and within an area of their expertise (pandemics).
Side thought:
These kinds of (potential) errors, from up on high and elsewhere, may happen less often, if EA was even slightly diverse, in terms of diversity of thought, class… anything…
And these kinds of errors, (which I can name more of), may persist, so long as EA, largely purposefully, remains one of the most exclusive and least-diverse orgs on the planet… while rationalizing that’s good because they are “smarter” than the average person.
At least in my primarily non-EA world, which does include plenty of people who never got the vaccine… the idea that people should be getting double vaccinated now in 2023… sounds out of touch. Because it is.
Why does EAG “recommend attendees to be double-vaccinated”?
I see data that concludes it’s better to NOT get double-vaccinated (in 2023), at least for large demographics:
vaccines can cause harm… and at least in some manners, to large demographics, are more dangerous than covid:
1 (“the risk of myocarditis was higher after vaccination than SARS-CoV-2 infection”);
2 (“In boys with prior infection and no comorbidities, even one dose carried more risk than benefit”).
Germany, France, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway recommend to NOT get double vaccinated (moderna), for large demographics (and these recommendations came when the covid risk was higher than it is now).
~90% have had covid; and I see no evidence that someone who had a recent strain of covid (who has natural immunity), should now get double vaccinated (which was based on older strains)
current variants are not particularly dangerous
the vaccine does not stop transmission
side point: boosters are not recommended for large demographics, by various studies due to harm they cause; at the least not good evidence (and a lack of even trying to get evidence?), that they are worth it
What (counterfactual-inclusive) data leads EA to recommend that all attendees should now get double vaccinated in 2023?
[EDIT: it seems EA changed the wording on their page today, perhaps as a result of me posting this. See older version here if interested.]
If the benefit does exist, and is slight in one direction… for the population as a whole… is that enough for EA to make such a recommendation for all individual attendees?
If the benefit was slight in the opposite direction (which I personally think it is), would EA then publicly recommend all attendees who have not yet been vaccinated, to continue to NOT get vaccinated?
Out of curiosity—does CEA, or any orgs which it supports or is affiliated with, receive donations from pharmaceutical companies?
This may not seem like a big deal.
To me, it is a (potential) example of EA being wrong, about something which is both… fairly basic; and within an area of their expertise (pandemics).
Side thought:
These kinds of (potential) errors, from up on high and elsewhere, may happen less often, if EA was even slightly diverse, in terms of diversity of thought, class… anything…
And these kinds of errors, (which I can name more of), may persist, so long as EA, largely purposefully, remains one of the most exclusive and least-diverse orgs on the planet… while rationalizing that’s good because they are “smarter” than the average person.
At least in my primarily non-EA world, which does include plenty of people who never got the vaccine… the idea that people should be getting double vaccinated now in 2023… sounds out of touch. Because it is.
- PS I am double vaccinated -
More related info and links here.