[dekhn]

It's unclear whether it makes sense to engage with folks who question the effectiveness of COVID vaccines, especially if they are not trained in the medical research/sciences. merely for the practical reason that historically, these discussions/arguments aren't productive, quickly devolve into people calling each other ignorant idiots, and most of the "facts" people cite are really just strongly-held beliefs which are not totally inconsistent with the observed evidence.

[jvickers]

In my view it definitely is worth engaging. In order for people to get vaccinated they need to give informed consent. In order for people to give informed consent they need to understand the risks and rewards of getting a vaccine. Arguably what I just said is my strongly held belief and inconsistent with observed evidence, but I'd still like to talk about it without calling anyone an idiot.

When it comes to training, if someone wanted to argue against my position by questioning the credentials of my scientific education perhaps they could be persuasive.

If someone was more interested in taking part in medical research/sciences and also discussions of policy relating to them I could have quite constructive conversations I expect.

[dc396]

While I understand this position (i.e., https://xkcd.com/386/), it (along with an unholy union of the Internet, confirmation bias, pay-per-click, and echo chambers) appears to have contributed to an explosion in reality disconnection that is becoming actually threatening, e.g., there has been a surge in "vaccine hesitancy" for rabies vaccines in pets.

At some point, assertions like "[COVID] vaccines are ineffective" need to be challenged (which? over what time frame? where's the data?) or they become "everybody knows ...".

[jvickers]

'ineffective' and 'effective' do not have very strict definitions. Something could be ineffective compared to how effective it was presented as being, such as the recent COVID vaccine. Here is one example of Joe Biden spreading vaccine misinformation: https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-2021-video-saying-vaccina...

"[COVID] vaccines are ineffective" is a fair assertion if the standard of something being 'effective' is preventing getting infected at all.

A better way to challenge the validity of that assertion is to make more effective COVID vaccines. In my view, bypassing the stage of creation of spike proteins and more directly getting the cells able to produce the relevant antibodies when needed would be a better vaccine, possibly more effective. It would also likely be safer (as the spike protein itself is dangerous, and the immune response to it can also be dangerous, by the sounds of it when the vaccine has not stayed localised in the arm but moved to the heart), so a vaccine that has solved that issue would do better when looked at in terms of a risk / reward ratio.

"[COVID] vaccines are effective [enough to be worth the risk of side-effects]" is something that would be better addressed through improving the vaccines themselves, possibly through improved public messaging, but I don't think as yet the data is there that supports that in an unequivocal way, and improved vaccines with greatly improved efficacy and safety which are then accurately described would be the best way to get the message accross.

[dc396]

Someone (including the President of the US) asserting that any vaccine is 100% effective and will prevent someone from "getting infected at all" simply means that individual does not understand how vaccines and infectious diseases caused by viruses work.

[jvickers]

Indeed. My point is that this sets a standard for what is considered 'effective' and if it falls short of that standard, those who say it's 'ineffective' by that unrealistic standard, that is still correct.

Something can be ineffective compared to something else. Such as a COVID vaccine being ineffective compared to some expectations or representations of it.