Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021_09_22 KGould_COVIDFrom:Kincaid Gould To:Board of Health; aberry@co.clallam.wa.us; aunthank@co.clallam.wa.us; Kate Dean; Heidi Eisenhour; GregBrotherton Subject:BOH Meeting Follow-Up; More Data, Requests Date:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:58:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Dr. Berry and Jefferson County Board of Health, Thank you for responding to (one) of the issues I raised in my public comment for the Board of Health meeting on 9/16/2021. I appreciate that the referenced article appearing in theLancet was mentioned. However, the response I received was a strawman. I am not arguing that the RRR is a useless number. I am not arguing that the RRR should not be used. I amsaying that the RRR alone is not enough information to provide informed consent for taking a vaccine, especially when that vaccine is still being tested. Most people would not be able toexplain what the claim that Pfizer’s vaccine is “95% effective” means. (Greg Brotherton provided a perfect example at the meeting when he said he "couldn’t follow the math." If themath wasn’t understood (and if what the 95% claim meant was only just coming to his attention), he could not possibly have given informed consent when taking this vaccine.)Without an explanation or more information given, this number, impressive as it may sound, gives little to no information. People don't ask for clarification either because they assumethey know what that number means (possibly—and perhaps even probably—erroneously) or because the 95% figure sounds so promising. And although RRR is a standard number used tomeasure vaccine efficacy, ARR and NNV are also standard numbers and are much easier to understand for the average citizen. And as it so happens, those two numbers were notmentioned in the response to my comment. If the NNV is 119, does that not mean that 119 people have to be vaccinated in order to prevent one more person from catching the virus?Does this not mean that 118 people will have no benefit from the vaccine? If 118 in 119 (or 99.2%) of people will not benefit from the vaccine, there doesn’t seem to be any rationale inmandating the vaccine for anybody (especially when the vaccine only "reduces symptoms"). I feel like the Board of Health and many people working in health right now are trying to make the best choices, and I appreciate everybody for all of their efforts. I do not support or inany way condone any of the threats of violence against Dr. Berry. (I will note that I have never heard of something like this happening on a local level, though, so it seems clear that therecent mandate has drawn considerable public pushback and that people are extremely upset.) I am not trying to personally attack any of you (and, in rereading my comment from last week,I would like to apologize to Greg Brotherton, in the case that my statement came off as a personal attack—this was not the intention so much as to express my frustration). However, I also feel like too much is being done out of fear. This is a short and interestingarticle from the New York Times that shows how Republicans have understated the seriousness of the virus while Democrats have overstated its impact:https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/briefing/atlanta-shootings-kamala-harris-tax-deadline- 2021.html. The data cited can also be found here: https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-misinformation-is-distorting-covid-policies-and-behaviors/. For me, the most interesting insight is the following (bolded for emphasis): “The U.S. public is also deeply misinformed about the severity of the virus for the averageinfected person. In December, we asked, “What percentage of people who have been infected by the coronavirus needed to be hospitalized?” The correct answer is not precisely known, but it is highly likely to be between 1% and 5%according to the best available estimates, and it is unlikely to be much higher or lower. We discuss the data and logic behind this conclusion in the appendix. Less than one in five U.S. adults (18%) give a correct answer of between 1 and 5%.Many adults (35%) say that at least half of infected people need hospitalization. If thatwere true, the millions of resulting patients would have overwhelmed hospitalsthroughout the pandemic. Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to overestimate this harm. Forty-one percent of Democrats and 28% of Republicans answered that half or more of those infected byCOVID-19 need to be hospitalized. Republicans were also far more likely to get the correct answer, with 26% correctly identifying the risk compared to just 10% of Democrats.” This shows that many people (more than 80% of people, according to the poll) believe that thevirus is more deadly than it really is. People are more scared of a virus than they need to be. How did this come about? I would assume that at least part of this overly frightened mindsetcomes from policies like the mandate forcing restaurants and bars to require proof of vaccination for entry, policies which make the unvaccinated look like a huge threat to personalsafety. Constantly wearing masks makes it impossible to go anywhere without thinking of the pandemic, playing into the fear aspect. Misinformation (misinformation which members ofthis Board of Health might classify simply as “information”) overstating the severity of the virus is obviously another huge factor. People in Jefferson County seem to think that the virusis coming for their children. Why hasn’t the Board of Health made any statement about how low the hospitalization and fatality rates are for younger people? People, including membersof this Health Board, are operating out of fear. It is difficult to make rational decisions when you are scared. Fear makes it difficult to think clearly. While it is noble of healthcare workers to try to save “just one life,” the measures thatare being taken seem to be blown far out of proportion. And just how many day-to-day lives are being negatively affected by some of the policies being enacted? I know mine is. Peopleare not going to go around wearing masks for the rest of their lives, and given that the COVID vaccines are leaky, it's not as if the virus will magically disappear, even if 100% of peoplewere to be vaccinated (which is not going to happen). The key takeaway is that COVID misinformation does not uniquely underestimate the burden of COVID; there is also plenty ofmisinformation that overstates the burden of COVID. Secondly, I’d like to respond to members of the BOH discouraging people from doing personal research and “cherry-picking” articles that support a specific narrative in order to"spread misinformation". I find this kind of comment extremely offensive and hypocritical, and here you've hit a nerve, so pardon my French, but this is bullshit. People (scientists, nurses, doctors, etc.) are losing their jobs when they speak out against the“official” COVID-19 narrative. People are deplatformed from social media, censored, blacklisted, fired, ridiculed, shamed… even for just asking questions. The act of asking aquestion is inherently not "spreading misinformation". Nevertheless, even this simple action is labeled as such. The endless series of consequences for asking these questions and sharing realscientific data that goes against the official COVID-19 narrative scares people into silence. With all of these consequences in place, it begs the question: Why would somebody put all ofthese things (e.g., reputation, job, friends, etc.) on the line just to spread “misinformation”? And when the question is asked like that, it really doesn’t make sense. People would notspread misinformation with such consequences in place "just to spread misinformation". Rather, people are spreading real information because they care enough about the well beingof others. They care that other people at least know that choosing to inject yourself with a COVID vaccine can have (possibly fatal) consequences. People are fighting back because theybelieve that censorship is wrong, as history has always proven it to be. I can’t even keep track of the number of times so-called “conspiracy theories” have proven themselves to be correctover the past year and a half. Remember when COVID booster shots were just a conspiracy theory? What about vaccine passports? I am not an epidemiologist, nor am I claiming to be one. But I have gone to school. I havegone to college. I have read many scientific journals and studies. I know how to read critically and analyze a paper. I do not wish to equate my ability to critically read a scientific journal toDr. Berry’s abilities. But experts are not infallible. Have you ever had a mechanic suggest a fix that ended up making your car worse and cost you a bundle, too? Have you ever beenprescribed a medicine by a well-intentioned doctor, only to have that medication make things worse? Did you know that more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette? Thalidomidebabies? Experts can get things wrong on a devastating scale. Experts have gotten things wrong on a devastating scale. This can happen even with good intentions. Instead of categorically stating that an adverse event “can’t have been caused by the vaccine,the data don’t support that!” maybe one should consider that if everyone says the same thing, there will never be data to support the claim, even if there is a causal relation. These vaccinesare brand new. There is absolutely no way that anybody (not even the experts) can make such a claim so easily when the requisite data is not there to prove it. When blanket statements likethis are made, studying the matter at hand becomes discouraged, which can delay alarming findings until a much later date, possibly resulting in many more adverse reactions. They alsoerode the trust that people like me have in public health. Thalidomide wasn’t recognized as the culprit behind thousands of birth defects until five years after it was marketed as a medicationfor morning sickness. Instead of blatantly denying that these vaccines can cause adverse effects (without any proof, and with much proof to the contrary), scientists should beinvestigating these claims. People would have much more confidence in the vaccine program if this behavior was not going on. Suppressing information about the potential dangers oftaking a COVID vaccine is much more harmful than people exercising their First Amendment rights. I also find it very hypocritical to be accused of “cherry-picking” articles. No matter what thecontext is, you always use sources supporting your argument when you advocate for certain policies; that is how an argument is made. Furthermore, I'm not sending you dubious studiesfrom websites that you’ve never heard of. I’ve only sent links to scientific studies and articles from sources that members of this board would (in all likelihood) consider “reputable.”(Opening up a discussion on what is reputable and what’s not is a whole different can of worms, and instead of delving into a long rant on the topic. The scientific community is notimmune to corruption.) It's disappointing when people in power urge us to "follow the science!" only to dismiss articles as "cherry-picked" and "misinformation" when they goagainst the main narrative. When somebody sends you a scientific study and you lambaste them for “cherry-picking,” it sounds like you simply don’t want to read the information that’sbeing provided. A stronger line of defense would be to criticize the article, not the person relaying the information. The propaganda technique of name-calling is often adopted bypeople who know they're wrong but can't support their argument. Contrary to what some people may think, science is built on asking questions. When you say you're tired of hearing "stupid" people and you're tired of hearing from people who have donetheir own research, it sounds like you're saying you want nothing to be questioned. As if science is set in stone and never changes. As if the government is always correct. As ifBigPharma has never done anything wrong. As if the things I'm seeing in front of me with my very own eyes are not happening. This is insensitive. It is belittling. It is disrespectful. It isdownright rude. It is gaslighting. And it is absolutely unacceptable coming from people who are supposed to be working on behalf of the people. If I’m guilty of “cherry-picking” articles to further an argument, so is this Health Board—or atleast, it would be if it provided direct links to studies anywhere on its website. I’m having trouble finding studies on any topic (and for that matter any RCTs) despite Dr. Berry’s claimthat they are readily available (though I admit it’s possible that I’m somehow just missing them). Why does the BOH say that the preponderance of evidence clearly shows that, say,masking is effective, when so many studies refute this claim, including many RCTs and the only RCT on masking to be done with COVID? Why can the BOH make this statementwithout citing the studies to support their claim but I am not allowed to offer direct evidence to the contrary with reputable sources without being dismissed or called "stupid"? And while we’re on the subject, I’d like to know which studies Dr. Berry is referring to whenshe says that the preponderance of evidence shows that masking is effective. Here’s a website with links to several studies that demonstrate the inefficacy of masking in preventingtransmission of COVID-19: https://swprs.org/face-masks-evidence/. These studies make a compelling case for the inefficacy of masks. If Dr. Berry has read these studies, I’m sure she’llbe able to offer a rebuttal to their findings, which I’d love to read. If she has not read them and is willing to read over them, I’d be interested to know how they change her view on theefficacy of masking. The studies in the linked website mentioned above don’t come from ‘random sources.’ One of them comes from the CDC itself. Lastly, I’d like to draw your attention to the resolution that the BOH passed at the lastmeeting. (I’ve tried to locate the exact wording in the BOH minutes, but they don’t appear to have been digitized yet, so I’ll be referring to an article that appeared in the Peninsula DailyNews: https://www.peninsuladailynews.com/news/jefferson-county-board-of-health-terms- misinformation-a-public-health-crisis/) Here’s an excerpt (again, bolded for emphasis): The resolution says addressing questions and concerns with factual evidence will helpalleviate concerns by those hesitant to be vaccinated and urges people who are spreading information to consult “reliable sources of data that follow the preponderance of evidence.” In addition to what was mentioned above (about misinformation overstating the seriousness ofCOVID), I’d like to circle back to the second part of my previous comment to the Board of Health last week. There, I asked for the BOH to include more data concerning COVID caseson their website. I have questions. I have concerns. Please "address" them! I have requested more factual evidence to show up, and the posting of this evidence would “help alleviateconcerns” that I have about the vaccine. I’m sure it would also alleviate the concerns of many other “hesitant” citizens. I find it odd that this resolution would be passed but my concernswere not even addressed. Given that the BOH has passed the resolution, it only seems right that my questions now be answered. You all have access to the previous comment I made and I sincerely hope that at least one ofyou will take the time to (re)read that comment and reply to those questions in full. However, if not all questions can be addressed, the following is the most pressing to me: I’m interested in either receiving an explanation for the reason that the “Percent of casesamong (not) fully vaccinated individuals” statistics on the website (https://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/1466/Case-Information) are reported since 2/1/2021 whenmost people were not even eligible to receive their vaccine until mid-April (and most of them would thus not even be fully vaccinated until after mid-May). To me, this statistic seemsmisleading. Furthermore, I’m interested why there is no data for ‘Percent of cases among unvaccinated individuals,’ i.e., people who haven’t received a single shot. The current statistic puts thosewho haven’t been vaccinated at all in the same category as those who have received both shots but developed a case within up to 13 days of their second shot. This also seems misleading.Does the vaccine not help at all if you’re not “fully” vaccinated? That’s not how any of multiple-dose vaccines I’ve received in the past have worked; for example, a single dose of theMMR shot, according to the CDC, is “93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella. Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effectiveagainst measles and 88% effective against mumps.” In other words, the additional shot is used because it confers immunity to a greater number of people, but the efficacy is still high withjust one shot. Why would this vaccine be any different? The phrase “partially vaccinated” makes it sound like even one shot should be partially effective. So equating a case wheresomebody catches COVID 12 days after their second shot with a case where a completely unvaccinated individual catches COVID seems incongruous, deceptive and intentionallymisleading. An ideal breakdown would include data from the last two week period (or at least starting no sooner than mid-May, a month after the majority of people became eligible for the vaccine)with the percentages among people in the following categories: Unvaccinated (haven’t received a single shot)Partially vaccinated (received only one shot or caught COVID-19 within 13 days of receiving the second shot)This statistic could only be improved if it were to be broken down into those who had received only one shot and those who had received two (as opposed toaggregating the data as one metric). Fully vaccinatedIf a fully vaccinated individual has received a booster shot, it would make sense to include this information as well. When we hear that the “unvaccinated” are the most affected by the virus, it would be nice if we could see the data that support this claim. Not data for the “not fully vaccinated” but datafor the “unvaccinated.” Data that support the claim that is being made. Thanks for taking the time to read this, Sincerely, Kincaid Gould P.S. I think many of the “vaccine hesitant” would appreciate a chance to have a public, live, recorded Q and A with Dr. Berry or the Health Board to field their questions and possiblyalleviate their hesitancy. With the current Zoom Webinar format for BOH and BOCC meetings, this kind of interaction just isn't possible. We aren’t able to ask for follow-ups to ourquestions or responses. Furthermore, many responses do not feel adequate, often because questions are not answered in full; as was stated several times at the past meetings, you simplyhave a lot of things to do and don’t have the time to hear everybody in full, much less respond to all of their questions. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.