Covid Bias, what and where is it?

[kittykaitak]

I am unclear as to what "Covid bias" is? If you mean sensationalist reporting and poor interpretation of data then there is no shortage.

The use of "appear" and "possible" are warranted in some cases as data trends can only indicate- it takes longer to get a clear view. I am hopeful that the end is in sight for now- getting the rest of the world vaccinated is the big challenge. If that doesn't happen within a reasonable timescale the possibility of new variants rendering some vaccines ineffective remains.

How to get the Hong Kong population vaccinated and have us open up travel is my main frustration.

[Sage]

I am unclear as to what "Covid bias" is? If you mean sensationalist reporting and poor interpretation of data then there is no shortage.

The use of "appear" and "possible" are warranted in some cases as data trends can only indicate- it takes longer to get a clear view. I am hopeful that the end is in sight for now- getting the rest of the world vaccinated is the big challenge. If that doesn't happen within a reasonable timescale the possibility of new variants rendering some vaccines ineffective remains.

How to get the Hong Kong population vaccinated and have us open up travel is my main frustration.

Covid bias = The global trend of over exaggerating the risk of Covid using many different techniques to make it appear more risk laden than reality.

'Appear' is entirely appropriate in some instances but it's THIS instance that matters.

What proportion of the time is the risk from covid over exaggerated by the media and by people in general and in what proportion is it under exaggerated?

Another example is your use of language in your post.

If that doesn't happen within a reasonable timescale the possibility of new variants rendering some vaccines ineffective remains.

Really? 'ineffective'? Are you sure that's a possibility? How about you ask the question. 'What is the probability that a new variant renders some vaccines ineffective' To which the answer is likely 'zero'.

What about, 'what's the probability that some variant renders some vaccines less effective'?

So the next question would be; 'out of the total vaccinated population, what proportion of those will face reduced efficacy, by this new variant'?

And then; 'what % amount of reduced efficacy will the select population face, specifically and as a whole'?

'What are the real-world health consequences of that reduced efficacy'?

And; 'to what extent does the Brazil variant cause reduced efficacy in Sinovac? And again, 'The implications of that?'

And I think you'll find that the answer to every single one of those questions has a general probability and a specific probability of a 'negative outcome', significantly lower than your 'possible' comment suggests.

[hullexile]

Covid bias = The global trend of over exaggerating the risk of Covid using many different techniques to make it appear more risk laden than reality.

'Appear' is entirely appropriate in some instances but it's THIS instance that matters.

What proportion of the time is the risk from covid over exaggerated by the media and by people in general and in what proportion is it under exaggerated?

Another example is your use of language in your post.


Really? 'ineffective'? Are you sure that's a possibility? How about you ask the question. 'What is the probability that a new variant renders some vaccines ineffective' To which the answer is likely 'zero'.

What about, 'what's the probability that some variant renders some vaccines less effective'?

So the next question would be; 'out of the total vaccinated population, what proportion of those will face reduced efficacy, by this new variant'?

And then; 'what % amount of reduced efficacy will the select population face, specifically and as a whole'?

'What are the real-world health consequences of that reduced efficacy'?

And; 'to what extent does the Brazil variant cause reduced efficacy in Sinovac? And again, 'The implications of that?'

And I think you'll find that the answer to every single one of those questions has a general probability and a specific probability of a 'negative outcome', significantly lower than your 'possible' comment suggests.

You are very confident, where does that come from?

The WHO and others seem less certain that the concern, probability, is near zero.

https://www.pharmaceutical-technolog...d-by-variants/

[TheBrit]

Personally I think sticking to the plan is probably safest. It's still along way to go before under 45's all get vaccinated.

Healthy under 45's are at minimal risk. High risk under 45's have already been offered jabs weeks ago. I have a couple of high risk family members (both in their 30's) who have had both jabs a few weeks ago.

I don't disagree with exercising a bit of caution now and opening up slowly, after all as you say the decisions made last year were an absolute horror show.

But clearly the risks should be skewed to opening up quicker than planned given the stunning success of the vaccine rollout.

[Sage]

You are very confident, where does that come from?

The WHO and others seem less certain that the concern, probability, is near zero.

https://www.pharmaceutical-technolog...d-by-variants/

Even you are hoodwinked by the use of reactionary language. @kittykaitak wrote ‘ineffective’.



But even then, when we read your article carefully, which is pretty good overall, we discover that the potential reduction in efficacy is a reduction in transmission efficacy and that effectiveness against serious cases likely remains 100% (a paragraph tagged in Towards the end, despite it being by far the most important component of efficacy)

How else could one write that headline/article to reflect the reality?

[kittykaitak]

Even you are hoodwinked by the use of reactionary language. @kittykaitak wrote ‘ineffective’.



But even then, when we read your article carefully, which is pretty good overall, we discover that the potential reduction in efficacy is a reduction in transmission efficacy and that effectiveness against serious cases likely remains 100% (a paragraph tagged in Towards the end, despite it being by far the most important component of efficacy)

How else could one write that headline/article to reflect the reality?

Got to admire your passion for the subject.

Hoodwinked? I am not trying to browbeat anybody or trick them. Did I use the wrong word? If the vaccine doesn’t work as effectively against other variants it must be...

ineffective
adjective

US /ˌɪn·ɪˈfek·tɪv/

not producing the results that are wanted; not effective:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...sh/ineffective

[East_coast]

Types of bias in the media about Covid?

Sensationalism, simplification, Hindsight Bias, Representativeness Heuristic etc

[Sage]

Got to admire your passion for the subject.

Hoodwinked? I am not trying to browbeat anybody or trick them. Did I use the wrong word? If the vaccine doesn’t work as effectively against other variants it must be...

ineffective
adjective

US /ˌɪn·ɪˈfek·tɪv/

not producing the results that are wanted; not effective:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...sh/ineffective

Sorry, but anyone who truely understands vaccination and the range of likely outcomes against new variants would never use the word ineffective in this context. It's so far from reality as to be painful.

It's blatantly clear to me that you simply haven't grasped the realities involved. I don't for one minute think you have deliberately set out to paint a false a picture, it's just that you've been fed a diet of news that spins the story from a sensationalist standpoint and by governments and officials paranoid about the liability they face from making bold decisions.

As Dawkins is keen on emphasising, we are all ignorant of most subjects, it's normal. But there's also a respected approach to take in the scientific community when one's error is pointed out, and it's not to double down.

[kittykaitak]

Sorry, but anyone who truely understands vaccination and the range of likely outcomes against new variants would never use the word ineffective in this context. It's so far from reality as to be painful.

It's blatantly clear to me that you simply haven't grasped the realities involved. I don't for one minute think you have deliberately set out to paint a false a picture, it's just that you've been fed a diet of news that spins the story from a sensationalist standpoint and by governments and officials paranoid about the liability they face from making bold decisions.

As Dawkins is keen on emphasising, we are all ignorant of most subjects, it's normal. But there's also a respected approach to take in the scientific community when one's error is pointed out, and it's not to double down.

It is clear that you suffer from confirmation bias and seek only information that supports your beliefs. Your rabid pursuit of anyone who suggests any level of doubt to your supposedly scientific views is clear evidence of that.

I do not wish to argue with you- you don’t seem to deal with contrary opinion very well.

[Sage]

It is clear that you suffer from confirmation bias and seek only information that supports your beliefs. Your rabid pursuit of anyone who suggests any level of doubt to your supposedly scientific views is clear evidence of that.

I do not wish to argue with you- you don’t seem to deal with contrary opinion very well.

Hull presented a perfectly viable counter piece to position why there are legitimate concerns about a reduction in vax efficacy from variants, which I fully accept.

This thread however is about over exaggerating the risk from covid, which is e.x.a.c.t.l.y what you just did.

I can understand why you don't want to argue anymore, I wouldn't either in your position.