I took five law classes in my two Masters Programs. I wonder if that qualifies me to advise anyone on legal matters? I think not, I am certainly not that presumptuous.
Dan Cox once again gets bad info. He comments NOT on the clinical paper, but on the headlines from a far-right publication. I’m not certain that Dan or his expert (if he has one) have had medical clinical research experience.
Dan posts on Social media that Governor Hogan is being misled by advisors. Here is one link.
Hold your horses, Dan. The Governor has advisors from both the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins. . . .both premiere institutions. Johns Hopkins is a global premiere institution. Governor Hogan is not being misled, Dan is being misled.
The article (not the clinical paper) that Dan cited is here. Beckernews.com has been described as: far-right biased and questionable based on the use of poor sources, the promotion of right-wing propaganda and conspiracies, and frequent publication of misleading and false information.
But let’s get to the medical publication.
This article appeared in the European Journal of Epidemiology, 9/30/2021. The study was done by S.V. Subramanian (a research from Harvard, albeit not clinical or epidemiology related) AND Akhil Kumar (A secondary school student from Ontario, Canada). I certainly do not mind students getting experience writing clinical papers, but I hardly think the second author is a specialist.
My first thoughts when I read the paper (and then we will get to comments from real experts):
The data was collected as of 9/2/2021 – right when we knew that the initial dosing of the vaccines waned in immunogenicity. Many countries knew that a booster dose was required to raise the level of immunogenicity back to adequate levels.
“Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates.” True! We have been saying that we need to mask up, we need to stop meeting in crowds, etc. with Omicron.
There is absolutely no doubt that the vaccines are doing what they did in clinical trial. . .they lead to far less hospitalizations or death.
Let’s get to some experts commenting on the clinical paper. I quote some comments from the reviews.
S.V. Subramanian, the Harvard professor of population health and geography behind the paper, says the vaccine doubters are completely wrong.
“That conclusion is misleading and inaccurate,” Subramanian told me over email. “This paper supports vaccination as an important strategy for reducing infection and transmission, along with hand-washing, mask-wearing, and physical distancing.”
Subramanian insisted that the positive effects of vaccines are not in doubt: “Other research has clearly and definitively established that the vaccines significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization and mortality.”
While Subramanian’s paper has it doubters, it is not considered particularly controversial. Nor does he use his findings to advance polemic political claims. But that hasn’t stopped his research from being shared and contorted by people who are trying to spread vaccine disinformation. In many cases, they share news of the paper with little to no comment at all, a nothing-to-say tactic that may help them avoid scrutiny or moderation for spreading disinformation. Even so, given their track record of spreading vaccine falsehoods, the subtext of what they are communicating is perfectly clear.
These extra summaries of individual-level data and context, left out of this correspondence, paint more of a complete picture of protective effects of vaccines against symptomatic infection and detrimental health outcomes that should not be excluded from the limited contextual analysis done by Subramanian and Kumar here.
The release of this correspondence, in the hands of those without training to understand and critically appraise these data appropriately, can potentially be harmful when not presented with these caveats.These types of analyses require hard work to provide accurate information. Subramanian and Kumar didn’t do hard work, so they provide an analysis that has little to no meaning in understanding the effectiveness of vaccines. Sadly, it will probably be used to push a false narrative about the usefulness of these vaccines.
Prior to today, I would’ve imagined the European Journal of Epidemiology would have a rigorous standard for what it publishes. Turns out it was wrong. Papers that wouldn’t cut it in an introductory econometrics course can apparently be published in the prestigious journal.
(My comment: Please click on the link and look at the chart “Coronavirus infections by vaccination status. Vaccines are working.)
6.
From this assessment: (albeit, a long read) https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/10/13/ecological-fallacy-covid-19-vaccination/
I’ll stop with the references, but there are plenty more.
I wonder if you are aware of one child dying of Covid in Anne Arundel County. This did not need to happen. We need to protect all of us through vaccinations, through masking, and not gathering in large groups.
Dan Cox, it is time to stop providing bad commentary on medical publications or other medical information. Please get a physician qualified in helping you understand pandemic science.
I’ll leave you with the link to this ICU/Hospice Chaplain on twitter:
 | A guest post by
|
I think “Barb” is just Brian shitting on Dan lmao