The paper does not list any numbers for vaccination rates among PhDs, it only lists self-reported "vaccine hesitancy" numbers.
There is zero data here to suggest actual vaccination rates among PhDs are lower than among the general public but the title of this paper will undoubtedly be used by vaccine skeptics to imply that PhDs aren't getting vaccinated.
Compared to the US population, the proportion of PhDs in their sample seems inflated, and the proportion of people with only a high school diploma is lower then expected. I wonder how much one can trust a self-reported PhD degree, especially from a survey collected on the internet.
yep, I always find surveys to be a very lazy way of "doing science" but that is probably for another thread. The results of this survey do create an interesting (and in my opinion, believable) talking point, and maybe can lead to a better researched paper on the subject.
I personally think that PhD students are more likely going to be cautious of anything they don't have a good understanding of. They would (imo) be inclined to do better research into the pros/cons of vaccination, which is not easy to do right now with all the noise online.
Note: I'm double-vaxxed. I'm tempted to believe it, but have to read the study first. If true, this almost reads like a Dunning-Kruger chart. I wonder if this might be because those with PhD's tend to be more inquisitive and skeptical.
The top comment on the article also mentions a quote I thought was relevant:
"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them"
There are many reasons that I wouldn't fault anyone for being 'hesitant' at this point:
1. For young people, the risks seem to outweigh the benefits. By no small margin either [0]. If your response to this is "but herd immunity", try to remember that this has been described as "mythological", given the leakiness of the vaccines, and the undue confidence socialising shown in the double jabbed.
2. The pharma companies are providing these vaccines in exchange for massive profit - tens of billions of dollars so far - while they simultaneously disallow any possible legal action. It's hard for me to believe that something is safe, while the manufacturer sells them on condition they won't be sued over any potential side-effects.
3. Pharma companies have a record of hiding data they don't like. They bribe academics and lawmakers, pressure newscasters, and have a looong history of testing vaccines and medications on unwilling / unknowing particiapants. Tip of the iceberg.
4. Mainstream media has given us many reasons to distrust it in the last, oh, 7 decades or so. Even more so recently.
5. The governments who are managing the pandemic the worst seem to be more interested in bringing in "vaccine passports", lockdowns, and mandatory vaccinations than actually hiring / training more nurses & building more ICU units. Where I am, the government has been caught having secret parties with vulture funds and large franchise operators; our Chief Medical Officer pretends antigen tests have no use; our Attorney General just changed the rules around social gatherings after our top leaders were caught at a party.
6. Better vaccines - by all accounts, ie Novavax - are on the horizon.
7. The utter disregard of human rights, civil liberties, and medical ethics shown by a horridly wide swathe of media and government, who are happy to dehumanise the vaccine hesitant in the name of [mythical] herd immunity.
8. The fact that this whole thing stinks; from the censorship of discussion regarding a lab-leak scenario, to the extreme politicisation of potential cures and hypotheses, to the simple brow-beating and straight-up death threats thrown at people outside the groupthink.
[0] - https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html - note that this is only death due to clots caused by vaccination vs Corona death, and does not include the vaccine's risk of myocarditis, pericarditis, GBS, CFS, lingering numbness and swelling, missing periods, Bell's palsy, etc. Also note that Moderna and Pfizer were shown to have similar clotting issues.
While both links say the clot risk is about 8 times higher with Corona than either vaccine, the fact that they don't break those results down by age like the original link [0] above seems relevant.
The particular concern with the AstraZeneca vaccine is the rare combination of blood clots with low blood platelet count (thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome - TTS), not just blood clots in general. Accordingly the Eurosurveillance modeling study [a] (which the Irish Examiner article you cited [0] is based upon) studied specifically the risks of TTS.
Neither of the papers that these links [1 & 2] reference indicate that either of the mRNA vaccines are associated with TTS.
The first pre-print [b]:
> No safety signals were seen for ATE or TTS.
> Rates of thrombosis with concomitant thrombocytopenia after vaccination with BNT162b2 were low and in line with expected rates
The second study [c] examined only the risk of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) and portal venous thrombosis (PVT) after COVID-19, and did not assess the safety of the vaccines:
> Importantly, the present study cannot be used to draw conclusions on the relative risk of developing a CVT or PVT after receiving an mRNA vaccine compared to the baseline incidence or compared to other vaccines. Far larger samples are needed (such as those used by the EMA and the FDA pharmacovigilance studies) because the events have so far been found to be extremely rare. The observed incidence of CVT in the matched cohort of people who received an mRNA vaccine is compatible with even the lowest estimate of the baseline rate in the USA of 0.53 per million people in any 2-week period (binomial test: P=0.18).
The marketwatch thing [2] seems pretty misleading IMO as it implies conclusions that the researchers specifically warned cannot be drawn from the study - the relative risk of developing CVT or PVT after receiving one vaccine when compared to another vaccine.
> 1. For young people, the risks seem to outweigh the benefits. By no small margin either [0]
I read this article 3 times and I still don't understand how they came to the conclusion, as it seems to not actually compares like with like which creates a very confused conclusion.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I am going to pick the middle ground age numbers because no one uses 18-39 as a group for any of their studies, so I'm already suspicious, but:
From your fine news report[0], if you get the AstraZeneca jab there would be two blood clots per 100,000 for those aged younger than 50, of which there is a mortality rate of 17%, which leads you to a rate of 0.34 per 100,000.
Mortality rates for unvaccinated 20-29 year olds with COVID-19 is 2.1 per 100,000. [1]
You are much more likely to suffer deadly consequences from covid compared to the vaccine.
My best guess would be that the French study based it's results on the entire population, whereas the UK stats are drawn only from laoratory confirmed cases; thereby ignoring the large number of completely symptom free people, as well as comorbidities.
The stats for young people without pre-existing health conditions are wildly lower than the already very low mortality rates.
Obviously as this doesn't align with what I was expecting, I'm going to try to pick holes in it.
One thought, as this is facebook derived data and I don't believe they took up my references - maybe a load of people just chose the 'most educated option'
16 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 56.3 ms ] threadThere is zero data here to suggest actual vaccination rates among PhDs are lower than among the general public but the title of this paper will undoubtedly be used by vaccine skeptics to imply that PhDs aren't getting vaccinated.
Note: I'm double-vaxxed. I'm tempted to believe it, but have to read the study first. If true, this almost reads like a Dunning-Kruger chart. I wonder if this might be because those with PhD's tend to be more inquisitive and skeptical.
The top comment on the article also mentions a quote I thought was relevant:
"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them"
1. For young people, the risks seem to outweigh the benefits. By no small margin either [0]. If your response to this is "but herd immunity", try to remember that this has been described as "mythological", given the leakiness of the vaccines, and the undue confidence socialising shown in the double jabbed.
2. The pharma companies are providing these vaccines in exchange for massive profit - tens of billions of dollars so far - while they simultaneously disallow any possible legal action. It's hard for me to believe that something is safe, while the manufacturer sells them on condition they won't be sued over any potential side-effects.
3. Pharma companies have a record of hiding data they don't like. They bribe academics and lawmakers, pressure newscasters, and have a looong history of testing vaccines and medications on unwilling / unknowing particiapants. Tip of the iceberg.
4. Mainstream media has given us many reasons to distrust it in the last, oh, 7 decades or so. Even more so recently.
5. The governments who are managing the pandemic the worst seem to be more interested in bringing in "vaccine passports", lockdowns, and mandatory vaccinations than actually hiring / training more nurses & building more ICU units. Where I am, the government has been caught having secret parties with vulture funds and large franchise operators; our Chief Medical Officer pretends antigen tests have no use; our Attorney General just changed the rules around social gatherings after our top leaders were caught at a party.
6. Better vaccines - by all accounts, ie Novavax - are on the horizon.
7. The utter disregard of human rights, civil liberties, and medical ethics shown by a horridly wide swathe of media and government, who are happy to dehumanise the vaccine hesitant in the name of [mythical] herd immunity.
8. The fact that this whole thing stinks; from the censorship of discussion regarding a lab-leak scenario, to the extreme politicisation of potential cures and hypotheses, to the simple brow-beating and straight-up death threats thrown at people outside the groupthink.
[0] - https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html - note that this is only death due to clots caused by vaccination vs Corona death, and does not include the vaccine's risk of myocarditis, pericarditis, GBS, CFS, lingering numbness and swelling, missing periods, Bell's palsy, etc. Also note that Moderna and Pfizer were shown to have similar clotting issues.
Do you have any links about this point?
[2] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/blood-clots-as-prevalent-w...
While both links say the clot risk is about 8 times higher with Corona than either vaccine, the fact that they don't break those results down by age like the original link [0] above seems relevant.
Neither of the papers that these links [1 & 2] reference indicate that either of the mRNA vaccines are associated with TTS.
The first pre-print [b]:
> No safety signals were seen for ATE or TTS.
> Rates of thrombosis with concomitant thrombocytopenia after vaccination with BNT162b2 were low and in line with expected rates
The second study [c] examined only the risk of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) and portal venous thrombosis (PVT) after COVID-19, and did not assess the safety of the vaccines:
> Importantly, the present study cannot be used to draw conclusions on the relative risk of developing a CVT or PVT after receiving an mRNA vaccine compared to the baseline incidence or compared to other vaccines. Far larger samples are needed (such as those used by the EMA and the FDA pharmacovigilance studies) because the events have so far been found to be extremely rare. The observed incidence of CVT in the matched cohort of people who received an mRNA vaccine is compatible with even the lowest estimate of the baseline rate in the USA of 0.53 per million people in any 2-week period (binomial test: P=0.18).
The marketwatch thing [2] seems pretty misleading IMO as it implies conclusions that the researchers specifically warned cannot be drawn from the study - the relative risk of developing CVT or PVT after receiving one vaccine when compared to another vaccine.
[a]: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E...
[b]: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3886421
[c]: https://osf.io/a9jdq/
I read this article 3 times and I still don't understand how they came to the conclusion, as it seems to not actually compares like with like which creates a very confused conclusion.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, and I am going to pick the middle ground age numbers because no one uses 18-39 as a group for any of their studies, so I'm already suspicious, but:
From your fine news report[0], if you get the AstraZeneca jab there would be two blood clots per 100,000 for those aged younger than 50, of which there is a mortality rate of 17%, which leads you to a rate of 0.34 per 100,000.
Mortality rates for unvaccinated 20-29 year olds with COVID-19 is 2.1 per 100,000. [1]
You are much more likely to suffer deadly consequences from covid compared to the vaccine.
[0] https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40328123.html
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported...
The stats for young people without pre-existing health conditions are wildly lower than the already very low mortality rates.
One thought, as this is facebook derived data and I don't believe they took up my references - maybe a load of people just chose the 'most educated option'