Add Quote Autograph with airSlate SignNow

Add quote autograph

this is from the oregon coronavirus update the um the newsletter that i get as a citizen of oregon that i signed up for um from the oregon department of human services january 21st that's two days ago as we are speaking we have this headline vaccine voices i trust the science and the data is phenomenal i'm going to read the first sentence only anna antonopoulos a pediatric hospitalist in medford shares her vaccination story quote i got my coven 19 vaccine to protect my patients my friends my family and myself i've dedicated my life to helping others around me whether that is treating patients in the hospital teaching sunday school at church being a super aunt to my five nieces and two nephews and just being a good neighbor and friend getting my vaccine is an extension of this i want to be an example i trust the science and the data is phenomenal i was so excited to get my vaccine she is making a public health pronouncement which is that being a good neighbor means that you should seriously consider getting the vaccine and uh that may well be true that is different public health is different from what is the science what do the science scientific results actually say and the quote that this begins with i trust the science and the data is phenomenal again i'm going to get a little um semantic here and say what that should read is the data are phenomenal um the singular being datum for yeah data r um but we talked last week about um there being i think it was last week a death and there have been a few um that seemed to be the result of this vaccine but there are many millions of of doses of vaccine that have been have been given and um you know it's an error just as it is with kova to only talk about deaths but if you just look at the the death rate the you know the the rate of deaths that we really think could be attributable to the vaccine it's tiny and there will always be some risk and those deaths do not in and of themselves really suggest any reason to be particularly skeptical of this vaccine at all the fact is and we have said this over and over and over again that given that the technology with which the two main vaccines that are being deployed in the u.s the mrna vaccines by pfizer and moderna are brand spanking new that we simply cannot have access to data that suggest long-term safety those data cannot possibly exist the data are phenomenal what data the data on what has happened in the weeks to coming on you know almost a month now of many many people getting this vaccine so far so good great really hope it stays that way but claiming that you should trust the science and following that immediately with the data are phenomenal is disingenuous at best you you you just can't get there from here yeah i fully agree with you um the data can't be phenomenal because they simply cannot cover one of the very important issues which is what is the long-term uh impact of this on the physiology of those uh who have taken the vaccine hopefully it's uh a negligible effect but we can't know that yet and pretending that we do know it um is is unacceptable um i would also say that this is embedded in a landscape where the data generation mechanism is itself captured yeah and that is very troubling because even when the data do seem to suggest a rosy outcome one cannot be certain whether or not that is what the data say because that's actually the consequence or because the economic pressure economic pressures that come from generating vaccines like this in a for-profit context have um steered the journals have caused um a you know selection of some data over others because they paint a rosier picture i'm not saying that has happened but we have seen indications of it and we've covered them here on the podcast the fact is this is not a clean system and if the next time this happens we want to be able to say what it is that the the data indicate then we need to clean up that system so that in fact we can say you know okay we still wouldn't know what the long-term impact was but at least we'd be able to say with some confidence that an objective analysis says x y or z and at this moment we don't have that because the whole system is driven by perverse incentives yeah and it renders pronouncements by any and all health officials pretty much a suspect and you know we we should always be encouraged to remain skeptical of pronouncements uh that we have not ourselves uh verified or um had people whom we have come to trust uh go in and assess those statements uh in this case over and over and over again i feel like we're beginning to sound like a broken record here but over and over and over again we get health professionals of of some stripe who have been asked to make a statement which basically demonstrates to all the plebes all of us out here why it is that we need to take this and there is you know the best possible gloss that i can put on this is that there is an intentional fuzzing of the actual distinction between um what could the science possibly say about safety and efficacy of this vaccine versus what is the right public health move for as many people as possible to do and those two things it's great when they're exactly in concert they often will not be and the fact is that we deserve as members of a democracy to have the information on both fronts what can we and can we not yet know about safety and efficacy and what is it that we currently think is the best move from a public health perspective that will allow us um to um you know start having a functioning economy again as soon as possible yes well um maybe a couple of final points we can't say that the data are phenomenal we can say that they're going to be phenomenal whether or not that actually reflects the uh the um the impact of these vaccines on people why are the data the data are going to be very phenomenal yeah um okay and the last thing i would say though is that this brings us back around to what we started with we were talking about the indications out of the very young biden administration i mean we talked about several things that seemed positive rejoining the who um the uh paris climate of course paris climate change yeah and i would just say that in each of these two i think we need to be cautious of the same kind of um the two being the who and the paris climate accord uh yes um so the who uh in principle should the u.s be uh uh a very active member of the who sure but there's a question about whether or not the who is so compromised by allegiances that in fact we are stuck in the position of effectively not having a a viable who and the fact of peter dasik being on the who's task force to determine the origin of sars kovi ii in china is indicative of a deep kind of corruption right this is the last person who should be on that committee and yet he's there and again most positive gloss is at the very least there's a conflict of interest there there's a conflict of interest and it may be driving and so um if that is the case then the fact that symbolically it makes sense to participate in the world's mechanisms for navigating health issues and things like that is in conflict with what the hell are we going to do once the mechanisms are captured we're going to have to do something unusual with respect to the paris climate accords i would say symbolically speaking this is great of course we should be party to global accords on managing resources like the atmosphere and protecting us from heat accumulation on the other hand uh it ain't a solution right it's more or less symbolic at the level of its effectiveness and if we were ever going to get to something useful we would have to have a very frank global discussion and that would include figuring out you know what parts of these models uh actually indicate something how can you validate them rather than pretending that because the computer says that something's going to happen that it is what other data can we rely on in order to calibrate our belief or lack of belief in the models etc so can we promote international efforts for actual alternative energy etc right and with respect to uh dapple i would say um i was very much not in favor of this pipeline i don't like it but um i mean you were you protested against it yeah i did um but back in whenever that was like 2016 2016 it would have been um but i want to know what the alternative is and i want a net analysis right the idea of we're not going to do this because our constituents don't like it is not good enough the answer is well what are we going to do and you know so uh i'm not interested in the shell game where we pay attention to the symbolism over here and we don't check out the net effect of the policy change so in all of these cases i would say uh i remain to be convinced um and we have to move beyond symbolism and uh you know political corruption and regulatory capture are two of the biggest stories of our era and we we're gonna have to to find our way out of the very deep hole they've dug for us [Music] you