What qualifies as over mathematically; fails to pragmatically. — Cheshire

That's our other matter of dispute. Here in the UK take up is over 90% for the first dose and 74% for the second https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55274833 . Though some framing methods make it slightly less. I understand it's lower in the US, but over 70% is clearly quite achieveable, I don't see any pragmatic impossibility.

People that breath air? — Cheshire

Oversubscribes the set.

So, what is the correct figure derived the same number? Undecidable if deemed unpleasant? — Cheshire

If 70 in every 100 are in the group {ought to take the vaccine} and there are factors determining who is and is not in that group, my chances of being in that group could be anything from 0% (if I know I have none of those factors) to 100% (if I know I have all of those factors). The range in between depends on my uncertainty about whether I have any of those factors.

We've yet to agree on what those factors are. Your suggestion of 'not having a precluding medical condition' oversubscribes the set. You may feel oversubscribing is the best strategy, but you've yet to support that argument. Otherwise you might think some other exclusory criteria are also useful, but you've yet to say what they are.

There's a 70% chance you ought take it — Cheshire

No there isn't. 70% is the prevalence. The proportion of a population who fall ( or in our case, should fall) into some set. It's only the same as 'chance' (risk) if you assume the factors conferring membership of that set are random. In our case they're not, so chance and prevalence are not the same.

Let me give you an example. Dying in a plane crash has a prevalence of 1 in 14,000,000 (one in every 14,000,000 people who die, do so via plane crashes). What's my risk of dying in a plane crash?...bearing in mind I don't fly.

You can behave in a way that simulates a vaccine? — Cheshire

Of course. To the extent vaccines reduce the risk of severe illness I can do likewise by reducing the factors known to be associated with over 90% of severe disease (or being lucky enough not to suffer from those out of my control). To the extent that a vaccine reduces transmission I can do likewise by adopting the non-clinical interventions proven to reduce transmission. Nothing remotely controversial there.

Depends on the factors determining that 70% — Isaac

The factor are being a member of the population without medically specified exception. — Cheshire

Since your last reaction, I'm not going to assume you mean that 30% of the population have medically specified exceptions. Instead, we'll just jump to the fact that such a criteria alone overfills the 70% requirement you previously agreed on.

Want me to run the numbers? — Cheshire

Well, yes. That's exactly what I've been asking you to do.

Is there some allergy to citations I'm not aware of around here?

If 70% ought take it, then what is the expected value that you should also take it? — Cheshire

Depends on the factors determining that 70% and whether any of them apply to me. I assume you're not suggesting it's random.

They have procedures and protocols to follow that must be completed. This is standard for every approval and is in place to assure safety and effectiveness, but in this case, given the millions of vaccines already administered we have enough information to be confident of its safety and efficacy. — Fooloso4

So, Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research is lying when he says...

Some people say, “Well, look, we vaccinated millions of people and why can’t you just use that?” Well, we don’t follow all those millions of people in the same manner that we are able to follow people who are enrolled in clinical trials.

In actual fact they can just use that data because? ... you seem to have missed off the citation supporting...well, literally anything you're saying.

Perhaps not. — Cheshire

Well then maybe you could clear that up?

Doesn't support your repeated claim of having made a reasonable inference. — Cheshire

The original sentence you took issue with was a question, so cannot be an inference and I've not once suggested that it was reasonable (mainly because it wasn't an inference in the first place). I've basically just spent the last few posts trying to work out what on earth you're trying to say.

It is — Cheshire

Again, then maybe you could correct that?

seems deliberate apart from this near pivot. Well, there is a thing called a rate of infection that trends. Maybe, make an inference from that information. — Cheshire

Nope, none of that is making any sense. What is a 'near pivot', and what does the fact that the rate of infection trends have to do with your ability to detect vaccine take up from your subjective feeling about pandemic duration?

I said the vaccines were safe and effective. — Fooloso4

You said...

The FDA will approve the vaccine. At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Fooloso4

It is your claim that the FDA work from this point does not address safety and effectiveness that I'm disputing.

It doesn't require research. — Cheshire

I acknowledge a proper level of obfuscation has been achieved. Good job? — Cheshire

Well, this has taken a turn for the Kafkaesque

No. It doesn't require research to know that fewer than 30% of the population are injured by vaccines. It doesn't make it any clearer why you decided to use the inverse figure to populate your 70% who should take the vaccine.

I don't think obfuscation is at fault here. You claimed to know that the uptake of the vaccine will be less than the required 70% on the basis of the fact that the pandemic is lasting longer than you thought it would. The claim's quite clear, it's just a really odd thing to claim.

General knowledge that vaccines that harm 30% are not released to the public — Cheshire

The VAERS data is freely available here https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html . It's considerably less than 30%.

Common knowledge. Rational thought. It is an unreasonable inference; you may be confused as to my meaning. But, given the context and reasonable intake of reality; this inference can not be arrived upon. — Cheshire

I really can't make any sense of that I'm afraid.

Looking like a lot longer than I expected. — Cheshire

Why would how long you expected it to last give you a figure for the uptake of the vaccine? I'm not seeing the connection.

Glad you found it interesting.

Please repeat this unreasonable comment again. — Cheshire

Not sure how you think repeating it is going to help. You could just explain how you think the inference is wrong. Unless you genuinely think that my deliberate misinterpretation is the only explanation, that your written presentation is so utterly without flaw that the only way anyone could have misinterpreted it is with deliberate intent. You wouldn't be the first.

The pandemic that doesn't seem to be ending due to lack of uptake of gd preventive tool — Cheshire

Why? How quickly are you expecting the pandemic to end in your null hypothesis?

We agreed that 70% of the population should take the vaccine.

I asked who the 70% should be, you replied...

People not likely to be injured from a vaccine is how I would make a determination. — Cheshire

Leaving the 30% to be made up of people likely to be injured from the vaccine... or else you've left off a criteria.

It is 70% need to take it or choose as each individual sees fit. — Cheshire

Not if 70% of people see fit to take it. Then there's no 'or'. The two sets are not mutually exclusive... unless you have some data demonstrating them to be

Are we just going to go through the whole dance again?

Safe and effective are not binomial measures. They're continuous variables. Things can be safe, and then more safe. Things can be effective, and then more effective.

I'd expect better obfuscation from a tenured poster. I've rested my case. — Cheshire

Eh?

People not likely to be injured from a vaccine is how I would make a determination. In order to allow for the 30% that either can't take it or don't respond to it. But you suggest otherwise, — Cheshire

So you think that 30% of the population are likely to be injured from taking the vaccine?

The elderly and the unvaccinated. — Cheshire

And the immunocompomised (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332436/), the obese (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-020-0364-6), smokers (https://www.who.int/news/item/11-05-2020-who-statement-tobacco-use-and-covid-19), those with diabetes(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332436/), people who don't exercise (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8050880/), people who live in polluted cities (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7517216/), those living in close proximity to others, those who don't mask, wash hands, clean surfaces...

And all of a sudden; the directive toward 70% from your stated sources no longer applies?

It is either 70% or it is each person based on their personal interests. Because data suggest it isn't both. — Cheshire

What data? You haven't cited a single source for anything you've said yet.

That's what I'm saying. The lawyers gave the green light prior to fda approval. — frank

Ahh, I misread you. Interesting, but I don't think it's a majority is it? Most talk (Eric Topol recently, for example) has been about the difficulty mandating without full approval. As to the motivations of those that do on the EUA alone, I'd speculate it's still for the same reasons ultimately. A EUA still gives you someone to shift the blame to, for some lawyers that might be enough.

Could you simplify that some? — frank

Sure.

The headline is that the brain is hierarchical (in both structure and network relations) such that each cortex or cluster has, as it's data input, the ouput from those areas below it in the network. In this model integration is achieved hierarchically (the Markov Decision Process described), information is integrated in local models which produce discrete states to form part of a new level of information to be integrated by the model above. There's then a cascade of prediction flowing back down the hierarchy which filters and limits the outputs to give a less noisy feed. The working memory is the collection of regions responsible for both averaging output signals as they change over time (again, to reduce noise) and for developing policies which filter signals on the basis or prior predictions as to the cause of the signal.

So for eyes - you might get a load of light and dark receptors fire, they're modelled as being the result of some shape (light space, dark space not randomly distributed) so receptor signals not conforming to this prediction are suppressed, to reduce noise and these might then be sufficient to fire models for 'edges' - more feedback suppression, signal sent forward (skip a few dozen steps, you get the picture). We might eventually have 'car' being suggested from the Visuo-spatial sketchpad, and also 'car' from the Phonological loop (audio data).

Trouble is, these won't arrive at the same time, but that's OK because within milliseconds the working memory is suppressing the early signals using it's prediction of 'car' giving a uniform signal to feedback. The part of the WM that does this is called the episodic buffer, but it's not one brain region, it's several. Once the working memory has got 'car' it'll send that signal back through the whole cascade to inform the priors what to expect. Eventually motor movements (in this case saccades) are initiated on the basis of that expectation to focus attention on the areas of sensory input most likely to confirm the 'car' hypothesis.

Some models include a central executive (again, a cluster of regions, not one brain area), but Friston's model doesn't need one (one advantage of it) because the hierarchical structure doesn't require any further integration. There's never, as far as I know, been a hold account of how a central executive might work, and in fact it fell out of favour round about the time computational neuroscience matured Enoch to model hierarchical networks.

There are, as you say, other theories, but I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with them to give a good account.

Tononi has written a good summary in https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/comments/S1364-6613(98)01259-5, but it's payalled (I don't know if you'd have access).

that assessment is certainly not "popular" in the US despite all the status quo cheerleading in mainstream corporate media. — 180 Proof

I suppose 'popular' and 'mainstream' go pretty much hand-in-hand here. We've only recently got used to having more than four TV channels, whereas you have several million it seems. It may be a cultural difference, but the 'mainstream corporate media' as you put it is popular here, both left and right leaning versions. Alternative news sources are not anywhere near what I would call popular, perhaps even less so in the left wing than the right.

I've no idea which "popular left-wing media" you're referring to — 180 Proof

Mainly the UK Guardian/Obsever, plus my experience with generally left-wing colleagues who've perhaps read more widely. I read the Jacobin quite frequently, and have to say they've been quite critical, which is why I confined my critique to 'popular', I think 'mainstream' would have captured better what I was trying to say.

I've found countless investigative articles critical of Big Pharma's notorious practices and abuses. — 180 Proof

It's not so much their practices and abuses, but rather the claims resulting from them. It's as if (again, mainstream only, perhaps) everyone knows the industry is riddled with the usual corporate deceit, yet somehow everything which comes from it is nonetheless perfect.

what would be the alternative to trusting the official data and narrative? — Janus

I think the other issue here is this kind of epistemo-moral imperative which has somehow been snuck in to recent narratives. No longer is it sufficient that one's view is justified with good reasons (such as expert opinion, evidence, etc), but now there's an additional mandate that one's view must also conform directly with the 'majority' of scientists. We've abandoned the judgement of good reason for a childlike correspondence test against whatever seems currently to be 'the consensus'.

Reality, however, is not decided by vote - not even expert votes, so I don't know from where this requirement gets it's normative force.

The effect is to remove options from the layman, making their decision easier I suppose, but at the cost of any mature engagement with science. I'm not sure that's worth it.

Boston is not a computer simulation — hypericin

So? Computer simulations are real things, you can buy them in the shops. Why would they present some problem for what to call them?

That they will make a huge profit from this feat is lamentable, and even disgusting, but does nothing to diminish the achievement — Janus

No, absolutely not. But, as I said above, many other industries can also lay claim to outstanding achievements, it doesn't seem to buy them a free pass when it comes to trustworthiness.

As I see it the salient question is what would be the alternative to trusting the official data and narrative? Where would rejecting that leave the layperson in their need to make a decision? — Janus

Yes, I think you're right. But the obvious answer is to pay more attention to critics of the official narrative (expert critics only, of course). Tempting though it might be, I don't think simplifying the decision for the layperson helps any. If working out their individual risk profile is complex, then it's complex. We can't pretend it's simple by just ignoring dissent, I don't think that helps either.

Yeah. As I said, the polemicising effect of social media pushes this kind of narrative. Government evil. Scientists saints. No nuance. No balance. I'm just a little surprised that the worlds largest, most powerful corporations somehow ended up in the 'saints' category.

My guess is that they managed it by developing good products which provide more benefit and prevent more harm than any alternative. — Cuthbert

I don't see that being enough. The measles vaccine alone is responsible for saving millions of lives, but so are fertilisers, it doesn't make us trust the agrochemical industry any more. Heavy industry has lifted millions out of poverty, but we don't now treat their critics as if they were lunatics. Water treatment saves millions from disease, but that doesn't give the water companies an army of bouncers.

I don't see the connection between an industry's product being in a general class of products which actually work and us trusting them to provide accurate data about those products. I mean, most products work. It's pretty much the bare minimum standard required of an industry, to make products that work. The pharmaceuticals are not in any way unique here.

They are reminding us that there are many uncertainties and that we are all anxious. We hate reminders like that and so we lay into the people who provide them. — Cuthbert

Possibly, yes.

In the context of our sickcare system & predatory Big Pharma industry, you see, there's no "benefit of the doubt" given or "good will" to be had in the US for public health exhortations to take a vaccine that is not fully approved in a nominally scientific fashion by the regulatory authorities. — 180 Proof

Yeah. I think this is one of the most interesting things about the progress of this pandemic. It's really highlighted the way in which the Pharmaceutical industry are treated in popular (left-wing) media. They've pulled off a really neat trick. Were they any other industry, the left-wing media would be suspicious as hell of any product, announcement, research or advice given by them (or by agencies directly funded or heavily lobbied by them). You see it with heavy industry, energy companies, agricultural industries, fishery, tobacco, arms... And right they are too to be suspicious. But somehow the pharmaceuticals have pulled off the trick of not only being above suspicion, but of getting the left-wing media to actually work for them.

If you mistrust the safety claims of an agricultural company about their pesticides, you're a wise and savvy environmentalist, if you mistrust the pharmaceutical company's claims about their medicines, you're a lunatic. If you follow the money and raise an eyebrow at the results of an industry funded research institute on thriving fish stock, you're seeing through the PR whitewash to the real motivation, if you follow the money and raise an eyebrow at the results of an industry funded research institute on medicine efficacy, you're a full on foam-flecked conspiracy-theory-wielding nutjob.

I don't know how they managed it.

Now mistrust is not only a sign of idiocy, it becoming flat out evil. The polemicising effect of social media has pushed the pro-pharma side so far in the direction of beatification, that the only alternative slot to put anti-pharma is with the demons. I think even the pharma PR guys are shaking their heads thinking "fuck, we were not expecting it to work that well"

if the vat world is reality, what do we call the would outside of it? — hypericin

If Boston is all of a person's reality, what do you call the world outside it?

Thanks for the link. I need a break. I'll read it later and comment. — Pop

No problem. Hope you enjoy it.

How many people should take the vaccine. In your opinion? — Cheshire

I don't have an 'opinion' on the matter, I'm not an expert in immunology. David Dowdy, Associate Professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins says...

What we know about coronavirus so far suggests that, if we were really to go back to a pre-pandemic lifestyle, we would need at least 70% of the population to be immune to keep the rate of infection down (“achieve herd immunity”) without restrictions on activities.

So, about 70% of the population should either take the vaccine or be certain of their acquired immunity.

The issue isn't really with how many though so much as who. Some people are massively more at risk from the disease than others and some people are massively more at risk of spreading it than others. If we simply assume that there is a moral obligation not to put your community at too great a risk by your lifestyle choices, then you should take the vaccine if you feel (after listening to expert opinion) that doing so would be necessary to absolve that social responsibility. That's simply not going to be the case for everyone.

Switzerland and Australia have fully approved Pfizer — coolazice

The European Medicine Agency doesn't work in the same way as the FDA. Four vaccines have been approved, but their approval rating has a sub-category "Conditional marketing authorisation" which is

The approval of a medicine that addresses unmet medical needs of patients on the basis of less comprehensive data than normally required. The available data must indicate that the medicine’s benefits outweigh its risks and the applicant should be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data in the future.

These are the vaccines currently authorised under those terms.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/treatments-vaccines/vaccines-covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-authorised

I don't know about Australia's system though.

you could be doing all these things and also be vaccinated. — Banno

So, what level of risk reduction absolves one's social responsibility here? Is there a point where we can reasonably be said to have done enough to reduce the risks to which our lifestyles expose our communities, or must we in all cases do everything that it is within our power to do?

I wonder about the extent to which this metric applies to risks that aren't all over the news.

The fact that it's starting to be mandated tells you some high powered by lawyers were consulted about the risks. They gave it the thumbs up. Wonder what their calculations were. — frank

Their client could have mandated vaccinations, didn't, and someone died - big payout: Their client mandated a fully approved vaccination and someone died from it - FDA's fault, no payout.

I don't think their calculations were that complicated. It why most lawyers are pushing hard for the BLA to be approved, it shifts the legal responsibility for injury.

Isaac is familiar with some of the theories about how that happens. — frank

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15249-0.pdf

Is a good primer for any interested.

no one takes a vaccine that might have worked. It's a rational strategy for an individual to optimize that is detrimental to a group outcome. — Cheshire

You said that not taking the vaccine was...

a rational strategy for an individual to optimize that is detrimental to a group outcome. — Cheshire

...I'm asking you how it is detrimental to a group outcome in the scenario I outlined. I don't see how me asking the question proves your point.

Oh, and to be super clear. On...

Joe Biden told CNN's Don Lemon during a CNN Townhall that he expects Covid-19 vaccines could get full approval "quickly.

"I expect there's no tiger in that room" and "I've checked; there's no tiger in that room" are two entirely different statements of safety and two entirely different risk scenarios for any person about to enter that room.

I'm not sure why you're addressing that to me. It's precisely the argument I've been making.

The FDA work makes "a real difference" in significant areas such as "real-world data on effectiveness and safety".

So the difference in risk between an EUA approved drug and a fully approved BLA is significant. You are wrong to say that

At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Fooloso4

The consensus may be an excuse. They can't find another excuse? — Cheshire

Strange how the supply of evidence vacillates between being a marker of one's sanity to being entirely optional depending on which side of the debate one is on.

If I perceive a vaccine risk higher than my perceived virus threat then the decision is do not take. If every decision is made from this subjective view then no one takes a vaccine that might have worked. — Cheshire

Why would no one take a vaccine under these terms. Are vaccines so badly presented that literary everyone is going to perceive the risk from taking it to he higher than the risk of the disease. Is that the view you generally hear in public forums?

It's a rational strategy for an individual to optimize that is detrimental to a group outcome. — Cheshire

Only if the resultant group exceeds the inverse of the proportion required for herd immunity. If not, it really doesn't matter at all. If they adopt other strategies to minimize transmission it also doesn't matter one jot. If I'm healthy, live alone, remain masked in my occasional public visits, sanitise my hands regularly and remain a few feet apart from anyone I meet, explain to me how I'm going to have a higher probability of passing on a virus than if I did none of those things but took a vaccine at 70% symptomatic effectiveness... and yes, I will expect you to cite sources, not just make it up.

I wear a mask and stand 6 feet away from you, and you wear a mask and stand 6 feet away from me, the chances that I'm going to get the virus from you or you from me is about zero. — Dr Paul Offit - CDC vaccine and immunology advisor

...in case you're wondering what citing sources looks like.

Consider the harm of vaccinated 1 too few versus 1 too many. — Cheshire

Depends entirely on the circumstances, the method by which you achieve the target, the alternatives available, the status of the virus concerned and the status of the one too few/many. It's not a simple metric.

I'll suppose your correct and percent of preventive protection is lower than reported. — Cheshire

Not sure why you'd suppose that since I've not claimed anything even close to such a proposition.

Not taking a poorly working vaccine would make an unfavorable situation worse. — Cheshire

It depends entirely on how poorly working it is and what the alternatives are.

I don't see how the speculation improves an anti-vax position. — Cheshire

What's the anti-VAX position got to do with anything I've said. Generally I'm staunchly pro-vaccination.

It's not like people are suddenly going to rush out and get it upon finalized approval. — Cheshire

The general consensus is that they would.

three in ten unvaccinated adults, rising to about half of those in the “wait and see” group, say they would be more likely to get vaccinated if one of the vaccines currently authorized for emergency use were to receive full approval from the FDA. — https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-june-2021/

Honestly, this information is not hard to find...

Plus it would make mandates easier to enforce.

If everyone gets a virus before a vaccine can be approved then what was the point of the approval process. It's a simple risk/reward analysis — Cheshire

Indeed. The entire purpose of EUAs.

it has to be made from the point of view of a population. Looking at it on an individual level is misleading. — Cheshire

Yes. Basically the whole of the point I've been making recently. That a policy is a good public health initiative is not the same as it being necessary or even appropriate for every individual.

You have not given a single reason why you think it will not be approved. — Fooloso4

I didn't say that I think it won't be approved. I said that the risk to the public is higher prior to them completing their checks than it is after they have done so. My reason is that the FDA are still checking it. If it was already ready to approve they would approve it. What else do you think they are going to be doing over the coming months?