I stand by my post. None of this says anything remotely implying what you claimed, that the mass vaccination programs pose a serious public health risk. That is purely your speculation, vaguely inspired by the content of the papers.
Your contention that it matters whether the campaign is compulsory or not only takes you further from your supposed evidence base. It's not even in the same universe as what the papers are talking about, and is purely your own invention.
I understand that you're worried about vaccine escape, but to go from that to "compulsory mass vaccination is a serious public health risk" is a completely unwarranted leap. Your authors advocate for diversifying our defenses, not eliminating the only one we currently have.
I disagree. I think it is a serious public health risk, at a certain probability, and you've provided no sources or math to explain what the probability is. Can you enlighten us as to what the probability of vaccine escape is?
Is the risk of vaccine escape 50%? 5%? .5%? .00005%? I have no idea what the OOM of possibilities is (I am attempting to model it). I appreciate all literature that explores that.
Clearly we've seen a significant drop in VE. I think that's pretty good evidence that the possibility of full vaccine escape needs to at least be considered. And certainly if the probability is ascertained to be above a threshold, then it is a serious public health risk.
I think vaccines should be Bayesian (very good bet if over 30 and never had COVID). But there is zero precedent for mass vaccination in the midst of a pandemic, and some people think things could go wrong. I am very very curious what people who model it think the probability of that happening is.
I appreciate the links and position put forward by the commenter, and sad to see that flagged.
I'd prefer to see links to models/code/data that offers arguments to support that odds of vaccine escape are low.
To repeat what I've said several times now (how can I be more clear?), the risk of vaccine escape does not imply a particular public health policy. There is no procedure that tells us what policy we should choose based on vaccine escape risk, because it isn't the only consideration. It is irresponsible to make authoritative pronouncements on a complex public health policy issue when you're completely fixated on one particular risk. Unless you're willing to describe EVERY possible action as a public health risk, in which case you should be honest and upfront about the obscure, misleading choice of language.
> the risk of vaccine escape does not imply a particular public health policy
It does have major ramifications for public health policy - you're disagreeing with many experts in the field when you make these claims.
> There is no procedure that tells us what policy we should choose based on vaccine escape risk, because it isn't the only consideration
Of course it isn't the only consideration - no one claimed that it was. This is a straw man.
> It is irresponsible to make authoritative pronouncements on a complex public health policy issue when you're completely fixated on one particular risk.
We are in agreement on this in general, and I admit my comment could have been worded less strongly.
But again, these ideas are being espoused by experts publishing peer-reviewed literature. They are not "fixated on one particular risk", and if you take the time to read the cited literature you'll find rich discussion of many subtle nuances and tradeoffs. That is as authoritative as it gets. There is nothing irresponsible about sharing the knowledge and opinions put forth by world class researchers.
I agree that vaccine escape risk has real implications. I meant to say it doesn't determine whether mass vaccination is prudent. I explained what is missing to make that determination in another comment. Do we agree on that?
FWIW, there is precedent both in 1918 (when the Supreme Court ruled it was constitutional), and during the revolutionary war (when George Washington made history by vaccinating his troops with a new experiment technique called a vaccine)
When discussing vaccine escape (unlike antibacterial mutation pressure) I seem to usually see it described as an issue for diseases which already have many strains:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigenic_escape. Which wouldn’t yet apply to COVID. And is not a problem for the mRNA technique (which can simply change the target sequence and give a new/booster shot).
Great retort BTW. I will be using the "... not eliminating the only one we currently have" line in future. Im worried that any concerns people have result in them being lumped in with conspiracy theorists/misinformants (?) but it seems irrational and dangerous to deter people from receiving some protection if the risks are more effectiveness and longevity rather than side-effects. My most lingering concern is simply that such a large number of people receiving the same few new vaccines seems like a gamble that we will all be forced to participate in. That's life though..freedom isn't always a given.
It's possible that mandatory vaccination is not the optimal strategy. But authoritatively branding it a public health risk is not something anyone is in a position to do with the info available.
These concerns and warnings are coming from the scientific literature - from experts at top institutions in the world. Your dismissal of them is completely unsupported.
I am not dismissing them. On the contrary, every post I have made takes pains to distinguish between the legitimate analysis and claims in the scientific papers you have cited (e.g. that vaccine escape is worthy of concern) and your unwarranted, irresponsible inferences from them (i.e. that mandatory vaccination is a public health risk - especially stated with such a definitive air of authority, followed by a flurry of citations that simply don't say that).
At best we can say that vaccination programs are not without risks. But this is true of many, many legitimate public health measures, and it is deeply misleading to single out one of them as a "public health risk" on this basis. If we apply such a lax standard of labeling consistently, then not doing a compulsory mass vaccination program is also a public health risk, for reasons that are now extremely obvious if they weren't already.
You have misattributed too many strawman positions to me at this point. You are either unable or unwilling to engage in good faith and this may have to be the end of my interactions with you.
It doesn't make sense to me how you can admit that "vaccine escape is worthy of concern" (which is an understatement at best), but then say it's "deeply misleading" to call it a public health risk. Yes you're right that none of the citations literally say "this is a public health risk" - but is it really an "inference" to say that viral resistance driven by mass vaccination poses a risk?
We clearly disagree so we needn't go on longer - but FWIW I can't help but feel as though you've been downplaying the significance of these risks with very little supporting evidence, other than your own logical reasoning and accusation of misinformation. I do appreciate you conveying your opinions in a respectable manner.
Thank you. I appreciate you bringing these legitimate concerns to light and I hope there is open debate about all costs and benefits of mass vaccination. The lack of public discourse from a position of humility and curiosity has led to many bad decisions during this pandemic, IMO.
That said, public health requires the analysis of all costs and benefits using a consistent, logical methodology. We need to be very clear about the inferences supported and not supported by our evidence.
Saying that mass vaccination carries the risk of vaccine escape is very different from saying that mass vaccination is a public health risk.
Your contention that it matters whether the campaign is compulsory or not only takes you further from your supposed evidence base. It's not even in the same universe as what the papers are talking about, and is purely your own invention.
I understand that you're worried about vaccine escape, but to go from that to "compulsory mass vaccination is a serious public health risk" is a completely unwarranted leap. Your authors advocate for diversifying our defenses, not eliminating the only one we currently have.