I love to say that I do my research before making decisions. unfortunately I don't always have the time to read 100 different articles and figure out which ones are the best...
Xian China has both covid and hemoragic fever. Maybe there will be some hyper recombination event and that will be the next pandemic. Merry Christmas Doctor, to you and your family! Thanks for your words of encouragement as always, it's a shame that we live in a world where even the concept of informed consent can be politicised,
No one will forget the death plague of Colbitis that swept the globe in 2023 and caused millions to lose the ability to tell yo mama jokes less than 4 hours in duration
Also - admitting failures and limitations increases trust - YES! It's something about public life I've never been able to wrap my head around, politicians and other people seeing it as a bad thing to own their mistakes.
@@KezanzatheGreat And admitting failures gives them fuel and trying to hide failures gives them even more fuel. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is to stop giving a fuck and admit your failures just because it's the most productive way to mover forward, regardless of short term stupidity trying to discredit you. Trust isn't increased with admitting failures, but by building your trust sustainably with reliable motives and outcomes. I mean, I can admit I'm wrong about a lot of things about covid and vaccines. Doesn't give you trust in my expertise, I hope, because I have none. I'm not a scientist, doctor, or statistician, that's why I'm wrong so much, even if I think I've understood science communicators who presented the evidence to me. I think your comment shows the nuance a lot better. Uncertainty and human error are often mistaken for weakness. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. My uncertainty about my ability to answer questions about a topic can be a strength and my inability is a weakness. It's all relative and those who don't see that probably won't be persuaded to see it that way either, because that would contradict the entire point of indulging in oversimplifying everything to have a sense of control, while pushing away the one thing that gives control: information. You can't fight an allergy for information with information about how much more nuanced it is, just as milk won't cure lactose intolerance.
I really appreciate this Rohin - you seem largely worn out by the polarisation of Covid and lack of evidence-based thinking, but I appreciate your taking the nuanced route. We need conversations like this.
personally I trust someone who admits they don't know for sure, but is able to give me their well-informed best guess, far more than someone who just has a very loud unshakeable opinion based on not very much evidence!
@@bpj1805 you'd be surprised. Honesty, even if it doesn't placate your side, shows an immense level of integrity to most, which is something that's greatly lacking in the public landscape of today. People really respond positively to it for the most part.
Would've fucking appreciated Fauci saying "Don't wear masks because we don't have enough for medical workers" instead of saying "masks are ineffective" at the start of the Pandemic. Literally no need to lie, just be truthful and give the rational explanation. Instead you now created a bunch of conspiracy right wingers
Problem is the 'very loud unshakable opinions' are the ones heard by the most people because the voices they come from are so loud. So, those louder opinions are more widely adopted than opinions not fully formed but formed from good evidence. This is how misinformation is spread. Also, unfortunately, people don't like and don't feel comfortable hearing 'I don't know'. This leads to people doing research on their own which inevitably leads to false information being seen and spread. On top of all of that, admitting you don't know is perceived as negative and weak. It's easy to pick apart. So, politicians and media don't say 'I don't know', they say something else which might not be correct but looks better then saying 'I don't know'. TL;DR: In today's society it's easier to lie when in need of instant answers than be honest.
’Way back in the 1980s I wrote a research paper for a psychology class. I began it with an epigraph: “People don't ask for facts in making up their minds. They would rather have one good, soul-satisfying emotion than a dozen facts.” -- Robert Keith Leavitt, _Voyages and Discoveries,_ 1939 Things haven't changed much in the intervening 82 years.
God, I would *_LOVE_* some facts. But all we can get is statistics, formulated in such a way as to not be able to glean much relevant information on which to based my informed consent. I mean, the FDA are actively seeking to hide the basis of the approval for the Pfizer vaccine, for 55 years. If you're not questioning why, when it took them just 108 days to review them before the approval, then you're simply choosing to be kept in the dark.
Thank you! I have no medical background, so I can judge studies and evidence even less, but I am feeling increasingly worried that people are getting "religious" about *everything* when it comes to COVID and policies for fighting the pandemic. Here in Germany we are seeing the same tribalism, and a frightening inability of politicians and administration to address the issues that are making people sceptical of official advice and policies. In essence, each side is driving the other to entrench even deeper.
Politicians have no power. Power is an illusion that you need to believe in for it to work. More and more people stop believing in it. A wild west society might be dangerous but definitely more honest than the current hypocritical bs we call society.
If idiots shout false facts loudly, you loose if you are quietly expert. The very fact of extreme views held extremely needs to be addressed immediately, with noise and vigor or the promoters of falsehood gain strength rapidly. Give them a mm and they will take a meter.
@@davidrowewtl6811 The more one learns how powerful people abuse their power and break their own rules the less we should be surprised that people radicalize. It's a homemade problem as the fish starts rotting at the head. The elites are just pissed that we want a piece of the cake. Their deceitful lies that kept them in power for so long do not work anymore. Since we regular people cannot win fairly against them as they own the fricking system the only way to do so is to do what they do and break the rules. It's like a Casino: If you play by the rules the house always wins. They win because we blindly obey them. As George Carlin said: The game is rigged. So we shouldn't be surprised if civil war will break out any time soon.
@@laaaliiiluuu a) Wild West mentality is a terrible combination of egocentric thinking and behaviour (everybody fighting for him- or herself) plus a severe lack of governmental protection meaning the law gets cast aside bc the government is to weak to enforce it. That is a guarantee for the demise of any society. No thanks to that!
@@laaaliiiluuu And don’t blame your antisocial behaviour on anyone else than yourself. YOU can do the right thing even when politicians or other “leaders” are hypocritically doing one thing while preaching another.
I found it very interesting that you actually mention that health care workers are leaving the field due to the pandemic. Having to be on the front lines of this for two years, with ever switching information, regulations and, depending on your country, terrible communication just seems so draining. As a med student myself this pandemic has opened my eyes a lot to the treatment of the government and the general public towards health care workers - at least here in Switzerland it's pretty saddening. Also, the thumb nail is a 10/10 from me, bravo Rohin.
All of this miscommunication top-down drenching from the governments. It would be so much better if each and everyone could just decide from themselves, because the government clearly don't know anything about what they are trying to regulate. Doing nothing would literally be better... (but they can't do that, can they?)
I fully believe the Gov. knows full well what they’re doing, and they are doing what we’ve seen for specific reasons (probably mostly lucrative and somewhat nefarious). I agree with you though, doing literally nothing would be probably more effective, but you know people want left alone and the Gov. can’t help but not leave people alone.
I had a recent back and forth in the UA-cam comments section with someone claiming to be a long time nurse who has worked in intensive care and with COVID patients. She claimed she had natural immunity from catching COVID earlier, and therefore didn't want to get the vaccine. Consequently, she was fired from her job as a nurse. Given that she opted to be fired rather than be vaccinated, I was genuinely curious as to why she made that decision. Her response was that it was none of my business. Which is true, but it made me even more doubtful about her story. I feel she's most likely just an anti-vaxxer telling lies. But I could be wrong about that, and I'm still interested in hearing the reasoning of anyone from the medical profession who has chosen to leave that profession rather than get vaccinated. Aside from the very obvious reason that they have a medical exemption, of course.
@@rodh1404 At least in Germany, over 9000 (insert Dragonball joke here) medical workers had left even before vaccination became mandatory for them (which only happened last month) - because they were worked to the bone and burnt out. And I saw one nurse on Twitter mention recently that half their ward handed in their resignation because the hospital had announced they'd be moved from regular care to Covid ICU after the weekend. Without one bit of ICU training. Management apparently got the message, shuffled things around a bit and moved them to isolation wards instead, which made at least a few (but not all) come back. Just like with Covid deniers and such in general, I feel nurses quitting over mandatory vaccination are a tiny but vocal minority. I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to them, but we shouldn't forget all the people who broke after being called "heroes" - and all the support they got was applause and a lavender bush. (Not a joke, btw.)
@@rodh1404 its not just nurses that got fired or left their job. Doctors have also left or fired. Why? Other opinions are being disbanned. They are not allowing other medications, or other scientific data. People are finding out there is an evil agenda behind what is currently going on.
Thanks for talking about the risk/benefit ratio. Being told that vaccines are 100% safe makes them seem less likely to be trusted. Being told that they're a little bit risky, and yet they're still worth it seems the better thing to say.
Exactly.. There is no medicine known to man that is 100% safe so calling any medicine 100% safe should set off alarm bells in anyone with any understanding of science.
The problem is that they’re not really claimed to be 100% safe, but the public has been trained to think that calling something safe means the same as having absolutely no risk. And I can’t blame them when the nanny state has been trying so hard to make life absolutely risk free.
Pushing a substandard vax as some panacea that will fix everything long after it's clear it isn't and it won't and even changing the definition of vax to cover for it is what is destroying trust. There's always been side effects with every medical treatment of any kind, but when it may not even protect against the disease it is supposed to protect against in the first place, that really skews the risk/reward calculation. And when it's impossible to even discuss those things without getting cancelled, or get any unbiased information, it makes it really hard to even calculate risk/reward.
Its always so naive when some people thing that because some vaccines work well, that means anything called a vaccine will be great. "All vaccines work" is a bit like saying "Car accidents cannot happen because i normally see cars doing fine, so we should never consider it"
I am not an expert nor I have any medical degree or anything to do with medical community but I saw it from mile away from the very first day. Imagine being doctors and falling for this shit LMAO
@@MojKanal-cz1iz dude, noticing and thinking and using your own eyes and ears is not allowed how dare you to think for yourself when the corporations clearly say what you should do and how to think? -1000 social points chud
It's refreshing to hear someone intelligent talking about these issues. It's okay to say we don't have all the answers, but please don't make decisions based on Facebook memes.
@@boio_ Exactly. Go talk to your family doctor. Get a second opinion from another local family doctor. Listen to what they have to say about the various concerns that you have. That will get you much farther than social media will 99.9% of the time.
@@Pensnmusic People don't trust doctors. They believe they are compromised by "big pharma" and just "shills for pills". Everyone thinks in black-and-white - no one thinks "While some GPs might have shady morals, most of them got into it to do good" or "While some pharma companies have sometimes done the wrong thing at specific points, what they produce, by-and-large, eases a multitude of suffering, globally".
@@boio_ Unfortunately it's not just "average joes" commenting. You can easily find full professors of biology, qualified doctors and other semi-qualified people who sound like they are very serious, not cranks, looking at the science, etc, and who are also promoting rubbish - either because they've been misled, they're not as smart as they should be, or because they are making a buck out of their 15 minutes of fame as a "dissident" who is supposedly asking the hard questions no one else is and "exposing the real truth" and supposedly saving us all from nefarious political and pharma conspiring.
I’m pissed off because I was expecting to be pissed off when Rohin characterized a rabid “pro-vax” crowd, and then everything he said about the nuances of vaccination was just plain good scientific reasoning as any professional scientist or doctor should do, and I agreed with it all, which pisses me off. ;)
It certianly didn't piss me off, but not being a regular of your channel I wasn't sure where it was going to go, and I did make it to the end! I fully agree it is rather bizarre that two years into this, we still seem to know so little. FWIW, I am triple vaxxed, but have questions on narrative purity tests, for example how any discussions of non-vaccine treatments and prophylactics have been systematically shut down by orchestrated smear campaigns rather than being open to debate: this is not the scientific method. It shouldn't be a string of tribal false dichotomies: there can be more than one approach.
It's reactionary. Laypeople see misinformation and think they can weigh in to 'help out', but they end up muddying the waters further. They may be better at critical thinking, but many aren't any authority on health advice, and many more can't have a civilised debate. Radicalisation occurs when people believe their opponents to be intellectually compromised and unworthy of debate.
This video made me feel like I was back way back when, before all this, when you actually could discuss things and *everything* wasn't black or white. Thank you for bringing some nuance.
I do consider stuff like whether the planet is older than 6000 years to be very black and white, but before 2016 I would have been excited to share how we know that because it's really cool and the person would be far more likely to hear me out about it, while now I am just bloody exhausted with people who bicker against stuff for the sake of being contrary and assholey and high fiving each other for yelling the loudest and ugliest, instead of people just having had a mere gap in their knowledge base.
@@Call-me-Al Ofcourse, that's not what I'm saying. Simply meant that now everthying's been mixed up with some weird notion (by many people, far from everybody) that everything is "us" against "them". Facts doesn't matter, nothing matters anymore.
Most things were never black and white, but people still liked to act as though they were. Just try to have a rational discussion about economic systems.
@@aclark903 That’s a silly claim. Reminds me of the ludicrous claims people make about the European Union. Besides the fact that the majority of people in government are unelected.
Really appreciate this video and quite enjoyed this 'sit and gab' style of content. Always happy to hear the things that have been rattling around in your mind for a few weeks/months. Thanks for all that you've done and continue to do to keep us informed and entertained. Take care, Doc :)
I actually stumbled over this channel when looking up whether is Keto diet bullshit or not and I kinda avoided Covid content here and elsewhere. I really appreciated the interview with David Nutt and I thank you for the laughs from unhelpful answers. I wish you a good new year (I hope for all our sakes it would be better than the last).
Just give keto a shot for a month or so and see whether it does anything for you is my advice. Judging from personal experience and experiences from acquaintances, it seems the effect of keto (and presumably other diets) is much different from individual to individual for some reason, perhaps something to do with genetics. In any case, after a month of really sticking to it you'll know whether or not it helps you. For me personally it made a huge positive difference in blood pressure, blood test results(!) and overall feeling better, while for my best buddy it did pretty much the opposite lol.
Keto diet is definitely bullshit. Intermittent fasting is the actual "ketogenic" diet. That's how you enter ketosis. But telling people to not eat for stretches of time isn't marketable, it can't be sold. Hence the keto diet.
@@paulj6805 I mean the point is to *stay* in ketosis pretty much indefinitely, not just going in and out of it. As for marketability, I can't deny I've seen some keto products cropping up lately, but personally I haven't bothered with any of them and my money spent on food has gone down drastically since keto. The only thing I've done is watch a couple videos and a whole bunch of googling and reading and those avenues are very much being used for marketing intermittend fasting too. Although I will say I also do intermittend fasting, but I'm only able to stick to it because keto stopped me from being hungry all the time. I've tried it multiple times in the past without and could never stick to it more than a few days, while now it happens automatically, I can even skip eating altogether for a day without feeling hungry or low on energy at any point. I think keto and intermittend fasting go hand in hand. Who knows, maybe my benefits really are mostly from intermittend fasting but whatever it is, it's been working well for me and it's saved me a ton of money lol.
I've been on Keto for 4+ years after being diagnosed pre-diabetic. My a1c numbers remain normal, I've not regained the 30lbs I've lost, and I still eat one meal a day while maintaining aerobic activity several times a week.
@@Hope4all2 I'm not saying the keto diet isn't better than eating McDonald's and drinking soda all day. And cutting out carbs is always going to provide benefits regardless. But it has literally nothing to do with "ketosis" aka, it's namesake. Look it up and realize what ketosis actually is. Best wishes.
Mate, what a wonderful brain you got! And this is why having family doctors is so important, if people had the opportunity to discuss with their family doctor that they know and trust, they wouldn't fall for all the wild theories out there...
Statistics can be really muddy sometimes. At least in my family, the vaccinations seemed to have paid off. Though I wonder if there are people who became vaccine skeptics or anti-vaxxers not in spite of media's attempts to combat them but because of media's attempts to combat them.
I'm not sure if there are people who became antivaxers because of that but there absolutely are people who chose not to take COVID vaccine because of that. Most people who showed some kind of resistance towards COVID vaccination simply had a trust issue with it (all the usual arguments such as the vaccine being developed too quickly, not tested enough, etc.). And that's how it should have been addressed - explain, provide facts, answer questions and most importantly, make sure you are perceived as someone who is on their side. Instead, these people were blackmailed, insulted and basically told not to ask questions. It doesn't take a PhD to understand that this simply isn't helping to build the trust but rather it completely damages it. If you stand in the middle and have to choose your side, you won't choose the one which is actively attacking you. Promoting a product by insulting potential "customers" is the dumbest marketing in the history of the planet. Whether this translates into lower support for vaccination in general (rather than just COVID vaccine) remains to be seen. What I perceive as a risk is that in certain countries it became a cultural war and people who chose not to get vaccinated were pushed out of certain social circles and naturally will now socialise in communities far more susceptible to disinformation.
There are. I am one example. I'm not afraid to speak about my own experiences. I decided at the start that I'd be responsible. I'd follow the rules for isolation. But I would wait until the vaccine was well documented before I allowed it into my body. I was skeptical, completely, but I was willing to listen to it. I feel my decision was correct for myself - though it may not suit anyone else. It seems that there are still areas less explored, like immune cells passing through the umbilical cord (which isn't supposed to happen as far as I know), myocarditis, all those other terms everyone knows of. We'll only know, a few years down the line. I must be exact. I did not party and I did not needlessly socialise, and I wore my mask when I was out. And I isolated when I did catch Covid eventually. I spread it to not one person in my college. When the mandate occurred in Austria, and in Biden's America, I started to notice authority gaining more and more power. As political talking-heads went back on everything they spoke about, the distrust grew. Not for any hate of science. But for a hate of authoritarians. It is my political belief that the government has no right to put me into an ultimatum, where I need to choose between my work and my life. That has not changed and will not change - medicine is not an exception to sell out all my beliefs on. I satisfied every other belief as required. By the "pro-science" community, I have been compared to Trump supporters (I hated Trump before), an anti-masker (I wore N95s exclusively), anti-science (I study science in college, in my final year), and so on. This is purely in UA-cam comment sections. In terms of the media I consume, I exclusively follow Mainstream Media. Sky News, CNN, all the fairly Liberal stuff, except for Russia Today and one other channel. I have yet to watch Joe Rogan's podcast on Covid 19, but I have heard of it. The other channel I watch is dedicated to taking the piss out of MSM - it is called "Memology", and it highlights the flip flopping of the politics of Covid 19. After being attacked for being skeptical of the data being reported and very little explanation for the questionable aspects (like PCR using 40 cycles - I found out the explanation later on), I often found I was more angry at the pro-vaccine groups that believed a health crisis warrants this type of authority. I genuinely still believe that Goebbels himself would take notes on how this pandemic has been spun.
@@samomuransky4455 Sorry. It seems my comment got deleted for wrongthink. Your comment was very correct, regarding myself. I didn't really trust the government to begin with. They were manipulative before, and they will be manipulative after. So it wasn't too hard to accept that they'd be manipulative during the pandemic. I particularly hate crowds who wave their moral superiority around. It feels as though religion has been replaced with science. The faith is still there, and so is the blind obedience. There was no room for anyone to be skeptical. It was denounced as anti-science to question the narrative. It still is. The result we have is not a healthy environment. Here is a funny thing. If you type depo*ulation into UA-cam, your comment is deleted. I theorise this is a defence against the jab but what will your average conspiracy theorist think about that? Even assuming I am incorrect - which I'm not convinced by - what happens when you censor one side of the debate so they can't actually communicate with good information?
I mean. If somebody on Monday says “i want to kill you” and proceeds to come Friday hand you a syringe full of fluid you don’t know the composition of saying “inject this it will keep you healthy” There is a very reasonable reaction of saying “no, thats probably full of poison, im not taking that” General principle applies, you must be both correct AND trustworthy to be helpful and good, lacking either means your actions will result in bad.
Your videos are always so very well put You put across the nuance of the issues at hand, and that's something that seems to have disappeared altogether on the internet in general 😔
The obsession with all-or-nothing takes on COVID subjects is a huge problem, and I appreciate your simple recognition that not everything is simple. Nuance and uncertainty is not only acceptable, but should be preferred IMO. The religiosity of COVID-related punditry--on both sides--is creepy and has done a great deal to undermine public trust.
The all or nothing approach seems to be the assurance of compliance. Social behavioural science advisers to government need to be held more accountable because they wield great power. If you take the vaccines as an example, imagine just before the roll out in the UK 1 year ago there was ambiguity about safety, natural immunity etc, people are mostly logical and they would think do I really need this vaccine. Instead the matter was made binary with pretty seemingly heavy consequences for not complying. Just think back to the scaremongering, the messaging about vaccines being the only way out, the lack of discussion/acknowledgment surrounding natural immunity. They even got the public to stigmatise the unvaccinated and created a de facto second class citizen. When the only tool you have is a hammer all your problems will look like nails.
I think that is much more the fault of politics than science. The way national governments have responded to the pandemic has been pretty bad, consistently bad. Giant egos, the terror of more international institutional control, a sense of complacency, you name it. Public health systems are 'so 19th Century' etc. But as he says more are coming, especially driven by global warming and habitat destruction, and the next one may not be so _kind_ as this one has been! Dear god.
You forgot about medics' part in that - by blindly following Big Pharma guidelines, scared to lose their licenses, studies designed to fail for medications that cannot give good profits, decreased requirements to where exactly they put their needles, "the cure" with placebo effectiveness for $3000 per course based on unfinished tests and so on.
@@winstonsmasterplan "people are mostly logical" Edwards : Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it. Kay : A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow. ---- Though, good for acknowledging that public communication and policy depend on psychology as much as anything else. We want nuance, of course... We're literally watching a skeptical doctor on youtube. We aren't most people. Simplicity and clarity, even when it strips away important nuance, is highly desired by a whole lot of people (and organizations).
@@winstonsmasterplan " Social behavioural science advisers to government need to be held more accountable because they wield great power. " They used the situation to, instead of doing their jobs they were trusted to, to do a power-grab for political reasons (who knows for what). Then they wonder why the public is unanimous united in their distrust of the government. I've seem a lot of people not complying just for the sake of non-complying with the government. And as the government went back and forth with (we should lock down, now not, now vaccinate, now not), each and every time, the person would just take the opposite instance, which was funny to watch, but a silly game to play. Something will have to change, this can't be allowed to pass the next time. Doing literally nothing would have been better than what they did.
You're one of the most underrated content makers, both entertaining, factual and nuanced. Great video as always, that gives lots of things to think about.
It’s really frustrating how this pandemic keeps changing. First with Delta, now with Omicron. The risk/reward ratio changes all the time, the science is hard to understand, and everything gets politicised. It’s so hard to find a good source to help sort through and interpret this stuff, and I know you’re just some guy on the internet, but I appreciate your perspective.
It's also worth remembering that policies are easy to criticize with hindsight, but many of them must be taken before all the data is in. If governments don't do enough, they get blamed for people dying, but if they do too much and nothing happens, they get blamed too. The latter is extra tricky, because it's open to survivorship bias. Just because nothing happened with all the restrictions doesn't mean the restrictions were useless, or too strong. People love to pick apart every single public health policy to shred, but it definitely isn't an easy job.
Part of the problem is that this isn't happening on some distant planet, deep down in the ocean, in a computer simulation, or in a test tube. The virus is here now, and either you or your neighbours have had it (assuming you have 10 neighbours) and more will have it, and hospitals were overloaded in some regions at various times within these last 2 years. There isn't really space to implement robust science when this means the choice between measures being taken to save someone and measures not being taken. Ethical concern. Material isn't arbitrarily available, cohorts aren't well documented and comparable, this all prevents quality science from being done. The data isn't going to be particularly reliable or particularly timely for a long time to come. The problem isn't just finding good data, it's that all data is tainted. What we need to do is find a way to deal with this fundamental lack of information. To make robust decisions that should by all reason have sensible outcomes in the face of a huge window of possible developments. How? Beats me. Political climate makes it ever more difficult, in part because people are burned by the bad prior decisionmaking. In the first days, the decisions were simple. Korea and Taiwan were doing it right. If it turned out to be a nothingburger, they would have suffered a couple weeks of economic downtime, not ideal, but easy enough to recover from. On the opposite end of window of possibilities, massive loss of human life and collapse of civilisation as we know it. The reality turned out to be smack dab in between those, and yet in hindsight, also the precautionary approach was validated. But given the situation we have on our hands now, there is no definitely correct way to go any longer.
@@SianaGearz The correct thing to do has become political. Its more obvious in the US where people are leaving the democrat states and their constant lockdowns restrictions and mandates and choosing to move to republican states where there is more freedom. Many people are choosing to live free lives of higher risk, others are choosing minimum risk and massive government restrictions. Its a clash of very different world views. Freedom and self determination vs restrictions and state control. Or to fly the flag of the side i fall on. Freedom and liberty vs the tyranny of the state putting their boot on your neck and forcing you to comply
It's frustrating, but that's life.. well.. some would argue that viruses aren't alive, but yeah 🤷♂️.. I think the important thing is that people making decisions should be trying their best to listen to the consensus of medical experts, and attempting to sort this mess out best they can. Are they doing that? 🤷♂️ hopefully. I figure it's in their interest to sort this out, so we can all work+pay tax, but that doesn't stop incompetence.. It's certainly dragging on, everyone is just sick of all this nonsense, but the way I see it- leaders need to just be honest and open about what they know, what they don't know, why they are making their decisions etc. Because communication has just been a nightmare, and just getting told what the new restrictions are, without any explanation of the motivations behind these plans, is what causes a lot of the problems because people just speculate about the motivations... look for evidence to back up this speculation.. become convinced their speculations are true.. aaaaaand that's literally how conspiracy theories begin. Avoid assuming motivations, and life is a lot less stressful, because you stop inventing extra problems on top of the ones that actually exist
Incredible content dude, I really enjoy your slightly hangdog, world weary delivery. Please don't lose your drive and motivation to deliver such content in a fashion that interested laymen, like me, can understand. Last, but absolutely not least, huge respect to you and your fellow healthcare professionals - an incredible calling and honourable, worthwhile work - you guys rock!
I Love the "Old English journal of medicine" videos I have watched them more than once. The one about cocaine was a wild ride. Keep making videos that you want and I will keep watching everyone of them.
Honestly thank you from not posting covid videos, because it's very overwhelming to go through the disperancy between countries. I'm Indian and nothing here has become "normal", we are under massive health, economic and many other crisis. I watch your videos for general health related knowledge like every other joe. If I wanted to learn about covid there are bazillion videos for that, but I know nothing is under my control except for the guidelines and vaccine ofcourse. Even the word covid is triggering my mental health at this point. Genuinely thank you!
Nothing has become normal anywhere. Some people are getting employed at record breaking rates while many people are losing jobs at record breaking rates. It’s a bad phase for literally everyone. Maybe we can find solace in that and help each other out in our miseries.
Its terrible whats happening in your country, and your and everyone else’s mental health. I have friends i worry about there. Ive taken the American tradition of using dark humor to deal with the situation. The whole world has gone to absolute shit
This is among the most balanced monologue on vaccine. You have helped me make a decision about the vaccine. Thank you for speaking even though you felt tired of doing it.
Thank Tom Scott for putting myself and thousands of others onto your channel. Thank you for once again doing your utmost to contribute to the dialogue in what I believe to be some of the most valuable contributions we have seen since 2019.
Thank you for making this. The last two years have broken me in terms of feeling alienated from almost every person I know- whether my deeply conservative family or very liberal colleaugues. Hearing you articulate the thoughts in my head so clearly and rationally moved me, nearly to tears. However many people you piss off with this video, at least one person is extremely grateful.
It's not science one shouldn't trust, as in "the scientific method", which has excellent data gathering advantages and to a lesser extent a means of interpretation. It's the greedy "bar stewards" that profit from it that need to be considered to be *wholeheartedly* untrustworthy !!! Just check out their track record. They are #%^&ing murderers !!!!
Reinforcement Learning 101: you make a video on Covid, you’re caught by the algorithm and you get tons of views; you spend hours making quality content on anything else, YT ignores it and you get mediocre view counts… Guess what most other UA-camrs will do and continue doing? Glad you’re standing your ground! Love your content.
For me, I was always pro-vaxx. I have my vaccine calendar complete (idk what it's called in other countries). But when the pandemic started I doubted the vaccines, I still got 2 doses of sinopharm. But now I doubt even more. In my country politicians changed their opinions and measures a ton in a matter of weeks, they didn't decide well. I also stopped trusting the UN with its handling at the beginning of the pandemic. I'm still pro vaxx, but I doubt the government and the media even more. I can't stand watching 5 minutes of news like I did before all of this.
@@scrumptious9673 I haven't watched news for ages, I rather read them. But when in Finland the COVID was raging in 2020 I did watch the daily COVID watch program in our public television channel. IMHO it was clear, very scientific and informative, but there were those who accused it being brain washing. You can't please everybody and politicians should understand that.
I've come to the conclusion that Dr's are quacks, when I saw how they were towing the lie here in Australia that was enough. Never will 'trust' them ever again. Oh and I told them to shove their shot.
@@topilinkala1594 How come? It is hard to please people with brainwashing, if they don't like brainwashing. You should stop believing government narratives, as if they were facts.
No thanks, I prefer to get cured if or when I get sick as opposed to preventing it from happening by giving it to myself. Fact: You will not be able to life insurance now. Those companies know it's bad and will not take a risk on those who get it.
More than a year ago now, one of my bosses wrote something in an internal piece on COVID - if, almost a year into the pandemic, you're still operating in crisis mode, you don't understand what the word "crisis" means. The way I see it, that's really the core of the issue, because a lot of policy decisions seem to be, in fact, still made as if there was no data to work off of. The result is a rapidly changing mess of rules, regulations and other messaging that only help those trying to polarize rather than those trying to actually understand what's going on and how to act sensibly. Vaccines just get caught up in that larger issue. Yes, all the relevant information is out there and can be found quite easily, but to someone with no prior knowledge or interest in medical topics, one-sided, incomplete and often misleading messaging is often the easiest to find and seemingly the easiest to understand - and that's the one thing that truly terrifies me about the pandemic, because it isn't just going to go away as the actual danger from the virus will.
Why do you assume the danger from the virus will "go away"? I know he mentions in the video something along these lines too, but I wonder where that assumption comes from. Many viruses that we think of as dead still pop back up regularly when people forget why they disappeared. Unless there's some science that shows its dissipating in some way, I'd be happy to be informed of it.
@@JohnGottschalk I never wrote or implied that the virus would go away and I don't know of any credible source making that claim. What I *did* write, though perhaps not quite as explicitly as I should have, is that the virus will eventually cease to be a major public health issue and take its place in the long lineup of seasonal respiratory diseases - extremely annoying to most, potentially lethal to some, but largely not something to worry about as far as medical resources go. Between fairly successful vaccination programs and the virus becoming endemic to the population (meaning that near enough everyone has a constant, low-level exposure and at least some level of immunity), this outcome is currently considered to be the most likely in published research.
@@jandl1jph766 there is another mitigating adjustment called "survival of the fittest". This is how we survived the plague of syphilis, it killed almost all of the susceptible and only those whose immune systems protected them are our ancestors. This is how we manage herd immunity if all other methods fail. Well, there is the virus attenuating and a slight improvement in immune reaction after survival of the first exposure as well.
The reason is simple. Governments today don't make policiy decisions according to the highest quality data. They make decisions based on what information the media makes most available to the public even when it's wrong. Because any politician who contradicts the media is going to have a hard time when the next election cycle coems round.
@@OersJ I have received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine and will go for my booster once it's available. Of course there will be some unforeseen issues. We live in "interesting times".
Thank you for this video. As someone who is skeptical by nature but not qualified to judge the merit of scientific research I've always tried to follow to scientific consensus. These past two years have really taken a toll on my ability to trust the consensus. As I understand it, modern science is largely based on trust because although the research should be repeatable its not really practical to start validating complicated research by replicating it and that is why we must be able to trust the people publishing the research, which is achieved by judging the publishers past merits and their ability to defend their findings against a court of their peers who may be skeptical. Its really hard for me to wrap my head around how any of this can work now that we have started censoring both the criticisms coming from the peers, no matter how qualified they have previously been, and all research producing "undesirable" results? How is it possible that previously highly esteemed scientists can now be considered crazy crackpots worthy of censorship if they ask the wrong questions? If we supposedly can't trust them anymore should we also call into question their previously published research? Are positive results worthy of anything if the negative results are censored? I feel like this pandemic has damaged the very foundation of science as badly as it has people's lives and the economy, and it is just incredibly sad..
Thank you for this balanced view. My problem with decision-making around pandemic issues is similar to the whole thing with commenting on high-profile court cases - I'm not on the jury. Or in this case: the experts do not report to me. I'm not receiving all the briefings by the top medics and researchers so I don't feel like it should be down to me to decide things. Of course I want my doctor to explain things to me and keep me involved in my care decisions, but also I want her/him to understand when the topics are too complicated and too specialist for me to make any kind of informed decision about. In those circumstances I want my doctor, with my best interests at heart, to tell me what I should do. In pandemic terms, this means I want the medics and researchers to advise the government, and for the government, with the nation's best interests at heart, to assess the information and advise/regulate accordingly. The problem is here that most of us can't trust the government to have anything but their own and their mates' interests at their ice-cold hearts and so we're forced to try inexpertly to assess the information ourselves, and we just can't. I'm a linguist amd a pedagogue, I'm not a medic. I need the experts and the people in charge to be acting together and in good faith. And I get ridiculed for saying I need the experts to do this. Since when was it smart to pretend to understand shit we normally pay other people lots of money to understand because *it's difficult* ?! Please tell me which drugs and which precautions are most advisable and I will concentrate on how to get adults using Akkusativ and Dativ cases in German. I'm sorry, I guess I'm just old. Rantblog over.
i think the reason ridicule you for this is because simply trusting the "experts" is something that we've tried before in the 20th century and it doesn't work out. even if they are working all in good faith, they have their blind spots and will not catch everything. Sure we can have experts making decisions, but it needs to be a transparent process so people in the public can view it and provide criticism and comment. You should never underestimate the power of thousands of people looking at something. and remember, no matter how good the expert's intentions, at then end of the day you are a number on a spreadsheet to them. they don't know you, they aren't personally attached to you, and they don't know you're circumstances.
You don't need to have a masters in Geology to know when it's raining. It's so obvious that this scam is entirely to do with introducing digital IDs linked to a social credit score. Hence why so many countries are doing exactly that, even though their own data shows that the vaccine passports have not affected cases or deaths with covid. But their solution? Expand the passports! Get them into every business in existence so you can't exist without one.
Great discussion! I find myself somewhere in the middle too. I'm a student healthcare professional and obviously pro-vax, but I'm not ultra militant and don't necessarily support imposing lockdowns if someone sneezes 100 miles away. However, I see a lot of my peers, qualified peers and potential future employers on social media taking the radial line, and thus sometimes I feel I'm not being "healthcare" enough. I obviously care strongly about saving people's lives but it's not a black and white issue and we don't have the evidence to decide which shade of grey it is.
Try to look less at groups and more at your systems of analysis. Analyzing the group is a form of potential cognitive bias. Working through the available evidence using the tools you learned as a healthcare student will be more reliable. What do you know about the data? Which options for public policy have data that implies what outcomes? You can leave the philosophy of which tradeoffs are worthwhile until after you have a good idea of what the trade offs even are.
I dont like HC workers being used as political pawns. There are deeper philosophical-political questions that arise that are important to address. To what extent are we turning our healtchcare systems from systems of health into systems of government? Ie turning society into a something like a giant hospital. What protections against this are in place? To what extent are we parasitising (and thereby discrediting) the authority of doctors to create social control? To what extent is this curtailing freedoms both in the short and long term justifiable -since it is often thought of as worth it to suspend freedom temporarily to acheive greater freedom in the future but not worth it if the suspension of freedom leads to less freedom. Are we sacrificing something fundamental about being human by lockdowns over something notably mild like omicron? To what extent are we moving from a society of individual choice to one of collective imposition on the individuals life? These are all important questions that need to be properly discussed if we are to live with each other with minimal tensions since everyone has different values and answers to these questions
Of course your pro vax, your one of their robots, do the studies on vaccinations for the last 30 years it's called research something your generation knows nothing about.
I and my family, including extended family, are not vaccinated and we are in the US. When Covid appeared our government went into overdrive (which it should) but they made a huge strategic mistake. They exempted Congress, the White House (staffs included), the CDC and their parent department from the requirement to take the vax. Then they relieved the pharmaceutical companies from liability, changed the trial periods for testing and even changed definitions used to set ethical standards for testing. Finally after all that they used a corrupt reporting method that made Covid seem far worse than it really is. Unfortunately in the US our politicians are bought by the various lobbies and are beholding to them for election funding. Trust in our government has never been lower and for apparent good reason. Time will tell whether or not vaccinating was the best choice for us but the real truth will not become apparent for decades. Much like we are now learning of government using soldiers and prisoners for testing without their knowledge decades ago.
+mikeb2777 *"Time will tell whether or not vaccinating was the best choice for us but the real truth will not become apparent for decades. "* The ignorance of you anti-vaxxers is just appalling. You really believe that vaccines are going to cause some mysterious "long term side effect" 20 years from now? What is that even based on? Do you have some knowledge of immunology and cell biology that surpasses the 99% of actual scientists who would disagree with you?
@@jackjohnson4386 There are now plenty of YT videos by medical professionals and scientists discussing the side effects of the vaccines and increased death rates. Perhaps you have not seen these or choose to believe you made the best choice in getting a vaccine and wish to ignore counter arguments. There are a lot of great vaccines but this was not one of them.
I would find it much easier to accept the variety of views if AHPRA (the medical governing body in Australia) had not told doctors, nurses, dentists - any health care professional - that if they said anything against the vaccine rollout they would lose their licence. How can I have an honest conversation with my doctor about MY health and the risk v benefits of the vaccine if they can only give me one response? You seem very rational, but it is difficult in Australia to have a rational conversation regarding anything to do with Covid or vaccines.
As far as the AHPRA (or other bodies) suspending medical licenses, my understanding is that it isn't a blanket ban on discussing risks and benefits; it's about reminding practitioners that they have a responsibility to provide evidence based care. The position letter I read stated that it was important to discuss risks and benefits with patients, and that they seek to address individuals who are relying on personal beliefs and biases, and who are actively providing advice and treatment that is contrary to such evidence. In short, if you actively discourage someone from getting a vaccine or approved treatment, you need to be able to defend your position based on solid evidence. Personally I like it when a practitioner admits they don't feel there is enough evidence on a subject, but hopefully they also recognize the difference between a lack of evidence existing vs their own lack of knowledge on a subject. And if your personal beliefs go against public policy, then that's usually a sign that you need to seek the truth in the evidence (and, like any proper scientist, be prepared to be wrong) and seek to change public policy. To take a personal view that's based on bad science and cry foul when you use that as a basis for your practice and get called out on it? Not cool.
I understand your burnout with the COVID subject. However, this is my opportunity (if you are reading this) to make a request for some content: allergies and over-the-top reactions by the bodies of many people to either benign or unimportant foreign substances. For several decades (after having a brittle asthmatic child) I have thought this would be a high value subject. Of course, I don't expect you to make a breakthrough, but a lot of us would like to know more about quieting the pointless storms. Thank you for reading this... if indeed you do. Thank you for being here in any case.
Hey Chris didn’t expect to see you here. We have a few mutual friends, and I’ve watched/listened to much of your stuff, 2021 was quite a year for you! Thanks for dropping by
As someone in the medical field that is tired of both antivaxxers and the yay-science crowd, you didn't piss me off. Very balanced and nuanced discussion here, thanks!
I am not in the medical field but I have decided to just get the vaccine and stop worrying about anti-vaxxers because they can't be bothered to worry about themselves by getting a vaccine.
@@notreallyhere67 Yeah. The thing is, they act as a better vessel for the virus to mutate and eventually become more dangerous. And also spread more, even to the vaccinated. What a boring dystopia.
@@possamei you know, I tried to tell people that, even looked up articles where actual virologists said the same thing, I tried metaphors, and none of it worked on them. They just kept asking for more sources and studies and at that point I gave up. If they can't be bothered then I won't be either...
@@possamei If the vaccine worked as initially advertised, you wouldn't be so afraid of the unvaxxed. The truth is that while the vaccines can help reduce spread, they are leaky, and even vaccinated people can spread the virus. But rather than acknowledge this reality, a new underclass of "unclean" people have been created and demonized.
I wouldn't say “weaponized science is hugely dangerous” (unless we're talking nuclear weapons research or killer drones etc.). Actual scientific information can't really be weaponized - the whole point of science is that you can, and should, change your opinion/standpoint when the evidence points that way. There shouldn't be anything cultural/religious about science. The real, and severe, problem is when people claim to base their political opinion on science, but fail to recognize that the evidence does not in fact support their point. Weaponized cherry-picked-science-chunks.
@@leftaroundabout Pretty easy actually - you determine the acceptable outcome before you run the experiment and then hide anything that doesn't fit or can't be twisted to fit. That's how a lot of science is being done these days, wherever there's an intersection with politics. There are loads of fields where there's only ever one right answer and if you ever do anything to call that into question you are excommunicated. There's no healthy debate. There are red lines everywhere you cannot even begin to question.
@@bubba99009 nobody is “excommunicated” in science for publishing results that disagree with political points, as long as you don't take unwarranted conclusions. There are all the time papers that, for instance, demonstrate that climate change has no impact on XYZ. What you refer to with “hide anything that doesn't fit” - well, sadly something like this does happen, but then it's just _not science._ The scientific method specifically says you form a hypothesis, which must be falsifiable by experiment, and then you design the experiment so that it will almost guaranteed fail in case the hypothesis was wrong (even when taking statistical inaccuracies into account), and only if it doesn't fail you publish. Indeed that leaves a problem there, namely that “almost guaranteed fail” means if you repeat the experiment often enough, every once in a while it'll succeed by fluke, a false positive. One solution would be to require so strong p-values that it would be absurdly expensive to repeat the experiment sufficiently often. That's what's typically done in physics, but unfortunately not really feasible in most other disciplines. Short of that, what's needed is to ensure is that negative results are still published, because then survey studies can detect the fluke positives for what they are. xkcd.com/882/
@@bubba99009 This, * 100. Funding is only given to people looking for the answers the fund source wants and is willing to publish. If that requires logical leaps or just straight up lying they will. And do.
Hi, thanks for your video, it was really amazing to hear a nuanced perspective on this issue. I'm fully vaccinated and boostered but I am a skeptic, not of the science behind vaccines, but in the institutions and corporations that produce and sell them and this side of vaccine skepticism is rarely covered in a balanced way. It seems incredibly strange that while there is widespread distrust of global tech, energy, food, finance corporations etc, and a general and proven acceptance that there have been well documented campaigns by such corporations and governments on a global scale to mislead or abuse the public on topics such as climate change, the Iraq war and wikileaks Iraq war papers, Panama papers, 2008 financial crash, the facebook/Cambridge analytica political advertising etc, there is little recognition that this abuse of public trust will carry over into the pharmaceutical industry. In fact the most obvious example of this abuse is the American healthcare system and the cost of drugs and treatments. We have to ask ourselves why anyone who doesn't have time to sit and do research would have anything other than mistrust in multi-billion global pharmaceutical companies.
Yes. I share pretty similar views on this. There is well-documented evidence that pharmaceutical companies are just that, corporations that work to produce profit at any human or logistical cost... and that means all kinds of scandalous stuff going on. The science side is solid as long as it serves the corp's profit-driven interests. Which is chilling.
Same here. Im medically trained, work in associated field, believe in pretty much everything Rohin says here, but firmly believe that political corruption of our institutions is responsible for nearly all the breakdown in the systems. The central evil of this peversion is cancel culture, the erosion of our liberal values that allowed everyone to speak more or less fearlessly and frankly. But having allowed cancellation, the purity tests of speakers, the concept of "platforms", collective guilt and the wholesale collapse of unbiased journalism we are now at the mercy of a whole slew of gatekeepers and narrative controllers. Accepting this destruction of our liberal heritage has cost us an enormous amount and it's far from over.
Especially when the jab mfgr has a long list of criminal history, AND got caught trying to c0 ver up adve rse eff3ct during trial: ua-cam.com/video/L2GKPYzL_JQ/v-deo.html AND, when FDA wants to wait 75yrs before letting the jab trial data becomes public: ua-cam.com/video/utUKZWUEUwE/v-deo.html Umm yeah.. big pharma has lots to gain in abusing public trust.. and all the signs are there. The $50billion revenue from jabs in 2021 wasnt too shabby either.
@@djanitatiana ...I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. The reason that corporations and governements get away with doing shitty stuff is because of...cancel culture?
@@legrandliseurtri7495 Without free speech, you can't have free science and free people, or it would be much more difficult, then with free speech. Free speech dosn't mean though you can lie wilfully without consequences, but you should be able to voice your concerns as your opinion.
Thank you so much for making this! I know a few people "on the fence" who I think it will resonate with. One point that I feel is worth bringing up is how so much of the fatigue, even for people not working in medicine, comes from the onus being on individuals to navigate complex, uncertain questions, knowing that they're going to be shamed by one contingent or the other no matter what. I also wanted to mention that the demonizing of anyone who is not vocally supportive of the vaccines in all contexts as an "anti-vaxxer" has the effect of pushing the skeptical, hesitant, scared, or confused people into identifying with the anti-vaxxer movement (which, arguably, has happened with most extremist labels that get tossed around at the slightest provocation because they're known to be powerful shaming devices). I've had conversations where the other person had no sense of what the real anti-vax movement was and why it was so harmful and false, they just assumed "anti-vaxxer" was an insult geared toward anyone with reservations about any vaccines. Whenever people are actively alienated and shut down by those privileged with science education (including self-education) and research capabilities, you can bet the conspiracy/fringe circles are ready to welcome them with open arms. Major, major props to you, Rohin, for retaining a sense of compassion and level-headedness despite your exhaustion. Hang in there. Best wishes for 2022. :)
People that try to pretend like the covid vaccine is the only vaccine in existence aren't worth anyone's time They deserve to be shamed for their stupidity
They're called "thought terminating cliches", they create an emotional response based on a false dichotomy, and lock both sides in an irresoluble argument. They're created to silence other points of view. They're the preferred tool of a democratic tyranny. Examples: racist, fascist, anti-vaxxer, transphobe, fatphobe, etc
As a scientist myself, i honestly believe that if we would have had more honest, down to earth, non-judgmental and medically accurate conversations like these since the beginning, this whole mess would have had a significantly different outcome. Thanks for posting this, Rohin.
Yes. Holy shit the number of people going out and speaking objective nonsense in the hopes of duping the public into behaving properly is staggering and has been literally from day 1. It's insulting and just trains people to ignore everything scientists say, because all of the most public-facing ones have demonstrably lied repeatedly. I'm vaccinated, I support the vaccine (though big pharma is definitely using it to turn a quick profit off the suffering of the masses and it's probably a little less safe than the people who make it claim), I want this to end, and the lies only prolonged it and gave ammunition to the crowd that's doing the most damage. It's so disappointing, I thought we were above this.
I think I saw your first video right when it was uploaded and loved it. And your videos continue to amaze me. This video is so important. I have stopped reading or watching anything related to vaccines on social media about a year ago, because I realized that if I kept reading I would not make a sound decision regarding the vaccine. I would not be vaccinated today had I kept reading these posts. My bubble was so extremely pro-vaccine and got angry at anybody that dated to voice doubts that I found myself arguing all the time for a more open discussion and more tolerance. I tried to bring evidence that showed that some of the doubts were plausible and thus reached a point where I was biased towards articles discussing potential risks. The only way to return to a more balanced view which finally led to getting my three shots was ignoring these topics on social media. Videos like this can reach people that have never been anti-vaccine, but were alienated in the last couple of months!
I don't agree with everything in this video, but it definitely didn't piss me off. In fact, I'm happy to see that you are talking about the data as you see it. I think some other more qualified doctors, particularly, Robert Malone (creator of mRNA technology) and Peter McCullough (cardio specialist) have spoken more so on the data and what it has been involved in the collection of the data. It's no longer as simple as "This is the data we have". It's never really been that simple, statisticians can weigh in on just how easy it is to ruin a dataset. But recently, interest groups have really pushed this to a new level and just for example from this video, you said that in lower age groups the myocarditis was seen more prominently. While there are some theorized mechanisms to back this, it's also been theorized that the effect is more general across the age ranges and it's just harder to tease out of older populations where myocarditis is already an issue. But we have seen where hospitals have been incentivized to relate any patient to COVID which thoroughly dilutes the dataset we have. In just the two doctors I mentioned, one specifically said they trust Israeli data, and the other said they don't trust it. The data itself has been heavily called into question. In your lengthy interview with David Nutt, he often wanted to relate to current events (aka, COVID and vaccines) and you kept calling him back to the topic you chose. It felt, to me, like you were avoiding the conversation of COVID. I can see now maybe you were honestly just trying to have a hyper focused video that already was extremely long, and you wanted the psychedelic's censorship to be the only point in the argument. I would have still liked to hear his points on the topic because he is acutely aware of the censorship in medicine, and again, when it comes to this data, we have seen things explicitly wiped from data or explicitly added to the data and it all clearly leans in favor of large pharmaceutical interests. Again, I don't agree with all your points in this video and I think some of them may be under-informed or under-researched, but it is nice to see that you have not taken the staunch approach that is so common today. I'm glad that you are able to look at the data with a little less bias than others and recognize that it's not the "safest vaccine in history" as some have tried to push. There are issues, and to your point, hiding this issues really does lead to more vaccination hesitancy. My children and I have all vaccines up to this one and until now I was pretty harsh on people who refused them. Now, I can't be so harsh. It's awful, because previous vaccines have had much more time to be tested, and have proven to be much more effective. As for the common example, the Polio Vaccine, no one is getting break through polio, and the argument isn't that the polio vaccine keeps you out of the hospital or reduces your hospital stay, or only some people with the vaccine end up in an iron lung. It's get vaccinated against polio, you don't get polio. To me it was a clear decision and there was little indication of financial interests muddying the data. Now, when vaccines come out, I can't feel the same because for this one, it's been so clear that people are all too willing to lie. Or... at the very least, speak without immediate knowledge.
I'm just some biology dork (I've no accolades, I just always loved Biology) and I stopped discussing Covid in early 2021 because no one could just *discuss* it. Anything I said or typed contained shifting subtext that changed depending upon who heard/read it. No matter what I said, they saw whatever they wanted to see. This total tribalism, for me, has been one of the worst consequences of Pandemic. It was bad before and now it feels unmanageable.
I hate to admit I'd probably be one of those people. But I dunno... at the same time I'm a little more open to things than I was before. Best thing is to look at opposing arguments and then decide what you think is most accurate. There's a tribalism about literally everything today.
Just re read your last sentence... the tribalism existed before covid its just more obvious to everyone now. Ive seen it escalating for the past few years before covid.
I know what you mean. It's almost impossible to have a nuanced conversation about the subject without assumptions being made. I would like to be properly informed and I've only managed to find a couple of videos covering the type of biological info that I'm looking for regarding auto immune issues. Even now I believe that we're only just scratching the surface of what Covid is about and under what conditions the vaccines are of benefit. I've got a feeling that we'll hear more hard science about auto- immunity as time goes on but it's subject to getting reliable information.
I have noticed the very same problem. I'm working in healthcare and I have studied vaccines in Uni at 2019. I could discuss about this subject with my former classmates but if I mention any of it to outside world, I get shut down as antivaxxer. I'm not antivaxxer and I don't want to kill my patients but I'm critical of this vaccines's processing and how it was handled by the politicians.
I have had the same experience. It has been impossible to talk about this without running into political territory I did not intend approaching. Things got weird really fast.
this is what I like .. A medical professional trying to explain nuance that I don't have the background to understand :) thank you and happy new year to you as well
You've put a lot of concerns I've had into words, and while I should really suppress my desire to appeal to authority, I cannot thank you enough for bringing some clarity to my worries.
The beard is back!!! Seriously, thanks for this measured analysis. Always looking forward to your videos, whether it's scripted and silly, or spur of the moment and sincere
The data seems to show that the vaccines barely stops spreading, I think thats one of the main reason a lot of people didnt get vaccinated since they thought it didnt matter if they personaly got vaccinated or not
Once again, your nuanced and careful discussion is brilliant and I appreciate it. So much of it is so hard to find a definitive answer, outside of the waffling medical journal scouring journalists (and occasionally self-serving researchers).
First time I've ever watched your videos and I appreciate the nuanced and calm discussion on such a controversial topic. This is the sort of discussions that should be happening in the public sphere and we wouldn't be dealing with the political issues at present. Thanks for the hard work.
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to the conversation. I've commented previously about the Science Studies literature, and been impressed by your willingness to consider other viewpoints. I too am concerned that the over-zealous promotion of the current public health initiative because I believe it undermines trust in the long term. We humans seem to find it very hard to deal with nuance. We're also bad at statistics, but that's another issue. ;)
Much love from an American ICU nurse. Your content has been a calming and/or uplifting resource for me when I've been at my most bitter the last two years. Thanks for reminding me that we all suck at least a little bit and should try to understand instead of throw stuff.
You most certainly have NOT pissed me off Dr Medlife! Work as HCA in inpatient mental healthcare in Scotland myself but am at a point in my career when I'm hoping to diversify my career by becoming a vaccinator on the side and this video has certainly given me some thinking points. I am a very keen believer in vaccines but I have found through my career that being as transparent as possible with patients, even if it involves admitting to nuance and uncertainty, however scary that may seem, seems do engender trust and confidence in the long run. So, thank you for this and thank you for giving me some thinking points/themes about what I hope to do doing soon.
Is there much solid evidence on the efficacy of differing messaging strategies? Are there studies comparing, for instance, different vaccination campaigns/policies in different countries, and seeing what the vaccination rates are? You seem quite critical of the UK & US governments' messaging on vaccines (which I think is right, their messaging has been awful), but I would like to see some solid evidence on *why* it was bad, and what a more effective strategy would be.
Yeah, I'm also interested in that, but I think a difficulty there is to assume any campaign happens in isolation. There's something to be said about the potentially slower to build culture around discussion of science, politics and public health. So an approach can be better in a short stint under certain conditions but help worsen the situation in the long run, and I'm not sure how you'd design research to look into that currently - probably would have to go to the side of history and such. That being said, in the lack of good evidence, it seems to me like a decent common sense assumption is that if you don't treat people with respect and distort information, you will probably not be breeding trust or cooperation.
Not directly from the government but first thing that comes to my mind was when the UK allowed free taxi rides and pizza slices to people who got the vaccine. It's not a very convincing bribe and I doubt the government actively asked companies and restaurants to do this but I've seen comments on UA-cam channels from news channels promoting it, saying the UK really put out a bad image of vaccines at that moment.
@@damianpos8832 The fact you think that public health messaging is propaganda is exactly the point the original poster made. In a perfect world the messaging would be evidence-based and ideally non-judemental. However the politicising of complex non-binary issues has seemed to set people into two camps: us vs. Them. I think the same thing happened with Brexit. Putting on my foil hat, I'd say it was intentionally done that way, have the public froth at each other while the timer ticks down.
One problem is trust in government in general. Here in the Nordic countries, trust in government is generally high, and so is vaccine acceptance ratio (the people who haven't taken the vaccine yet here aren't generally, except for a very small and very vocal minority, against taking it in principle - there's just a surprisingly high number of people who have real reasons; a paralyzing fear of jabs being one of them, and in addition to that, feeling ashamed of not having been able to overcome that fear yet...)
I'm actually feel better that you can be honest about what you know. And I also appreciate your reminder that we need to carefully weigh risks and benefits, based on the available credible information.
Love the shirt! I appreciate your approach, and have decried the false dichotomies I've seen crop up in other discussions. One thing I've noticed is that false dichotomies are an effective manipulation strategy for getting people to accept an idea or action they would otherwise find reprehensible or generally distasteful. Present something like pickle juice ice cream as an either-or choice against, I dunno, the end of civilization, and suddenly, anyone who accepts this framing will line up for pickle juice ice cream. The best treatment for this mentality is a glass of perspective with a little grated nuance on top.
Did you notice the false dichotomy in this video? Specifically the one where medical communicators must be doing a bad job communicating, or the people listening are big dumb dumb wackos. Does it really have to be bad communication, or dumb listeners? If not, why employ that specific tactic near the early part of the video? Who is he speaking to and why would that framing be useful? Perhaps people who are vaccine hesitant will pick the "bad communication" option and then feel better about this video because it has a better communicator!
I have lot of questions, concerns and growing distrust that I don't think will ever be put to ease. But this was refreshing and helpful at least. Thank you
Good to know there are still people on the internet that I can relate to. Very much in the "vaccinations are good" camp, but it's very concerning that any concerns raised about this one are quickly swept under the rug. That's not how open science or medicine should work! Great video, very reassuring to hear your opinion on myocarditis risk, and injection process.
In my experience the 2 main reasons for the prevalence of vaccine scepticism, are: 1) The complete disregard of natural immunity, or even a discussion about it. 2) The continuous shifting of the goal-posts regarding vaccines and vaccine-acquired immunity, and with it the dubious reporting about it in the media. In short, how the mainstream media in almost every country is handling the discussion and reporting about vaccines, is causing most of the resistance against covid vaccination.
Also, a lot of condescending messaging about how the vaccines are "safe". They're not simply "safe", there are some small risks. But I think those risks are less than the risks of COVID. I think people would trust the messaging more if it were honest about that.
Natural immunity, along with isolation, were the only defenses against the Spanish Flu. Isolation was easier with a 1/4 of the current population. 1% of the Earths people died. So, today we have 8 billion - which would be 80 MILLION people DEAD. Deaths are currently at 5.4 million - which do you prefer????? Get vaccinated, get boosted..
True, but I would add 3) Governments everywhere mishandling both their Covid response and their communication about it, at best, or in the worst cases, using the crisis to grab more power and the Covid measures as a way of social control. Thus increasing mistrust in both politics and Covid measures including vaccines.
@@ptrsrrll Except Covid letality rate even before / without vaccines is 20 times lower than that of the Spanish flu (not to mention we're not in the middle of WWI, which didn't help with isolation)
While I agree to an extent, 1) natural immunity and it’s effectiveness and duration takes a very long time to study and reach scientific conclusions. We can speculate, but the seeming silence has typically been due to the lack of conclusions we can make just yet. On top of that, a quick risk/reward in the messy data pool of who even 100% knows they had a prior infection leads to a fairly simple policy of “well you’re better off vaccinated regardless.” I hope we get the nuanced answers soon, but this desire to “get to the bottom of natural immunity” has a low reward comparatively to the risk of making assumptions in the mean time just to make people feel heard. 2) what you are reducing to the concept of “moving goalposts” is much more nuanced and would in good faith account much more for the fact that we have a mutating virus. 95% efficacy at the start was great, a plethora of evidence of declining but still significant protection need not be reason to call off the vaccines. “Moving goalposts” here would much more accurately be described as a dynamically changing environment- and it’s entirely reasonable (actually, entirely necessary and responsible) to react to data, recalculate the risks and rewards, and potentially land on the conclusion that we’re still at a point where a huge majority of the population still benefits from getting vaccinated and eventually boosted. Blame mainstream media and alternative media for completely botching the facts and the messaging, but turning all this nuance into quick digestible info for the masses is a near impossible task.
You may make only a few covid-related videos, but they are very potent and responsible. I think the virus is just another chaotic situation that increases a divide in our communities, and that's the far greater problem imo. While misinformation is worrisome, I'm trying hard not to demonize or infantilize people who believe different, perhaps irrational, things. It's fair to believe we're all trying our best with whatever information we currently have. (also, thank you for continuing to stick it out. Even if we're all expressing frustrations and exasperation at how long this has been going: doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical workers, and all manners of healthcare providers have been feeling the weight most. Sure maybe a few CEOs and board directors made millions, but 99.99% of those in the field are not seeing any payback for work that, respectfully, resembles warfare.)
Another great one by you, colleague! And exactly my thoughts - I am trying to make COVID-19 videos and being as unbiased as possible and not to hurt anyone's feelings! Damn, it's hard! Happy New Year!
One important thing to point out about masks are that even if it were proven that they have no effect on covid transmission they would still bring down instances of other transmissive diseases and therefore the load on the worlds health services; making them more able to focus on covid.
Following that line of taught you might as well say “let’s forbid driving so that we bring down instances of car crash injuries and therefore the load on the health services” you could potentially forbid any part of life that could bring injuries till we are all tied to a bed with a machine feeding us. TO SURVIVE and TO LIVE are two different things
@@Luca-xh7ng yeah but cases of car crashes don't rise exponentially, eventually making them a huge problem for the health services. That's something we need to consider.
@Luca: Please do not forget that the risk/benefit ratio between wearing masks and driving a car is markedly different. Not being able to drive a car will come at considerably higher individual cost than wearing a mask. The „risk“ of wearing a mask is 0. If you say that wearing a mask makes life not worth living, you are definitely neither a health professional nor a Mexican wrestler.
You didn’t piss me off with this video (it’s the first of yours I’ve listened to). Thank you for the considered and reasonable exploration and especially for acknowledging limitations in the current science and in your own knowledge.
No, you haven't pissed everyone off. This is what the message from the authorities should have been all the way through the past couple of years! There is no medicine without possible rare serious side effects... and playing that down is never a good idea... if the cost benefit analysis is good people will be on board... downplaying the possible harm, even if rare and strongly out-weight by the benefits, people will grow wary and suspicious. Most people don't like knowing they are being manipulated and lied to regardless of the motive and the truth will always out.
Most people I know don't want to know possible harm... they actively ignore possible side effects of drugs they need to have as painkillers or birth control pills.
@@caioporto9234 but, then they won't be keeping an eye out for the side effects? Isn't that directly counterproductive? Like, high blood pressure is a possible side effect of venlafaxine, so I check my blood pressure far more frequently than I otherwise would have. Because I am in a risk group for it because of my medication so keeping an eye on it helps reduce future risks. You can't do risk management if you pretend they don't exist :(
@@Call-me-Al Yep. Sure. Yep, unfortunately. I'm not saying that's good or advocating it. I'm saying that's how it goes here for most people I know (the vast majority went to college and have an income far above the national average, so it's not a function of lack of information).
@@caioporto9234 But, there is a difference between choosing not to know and knowing that you are being mislead... that the information is being kept from you... isn't there?...
@@sgjoni Sure, there is. But is information being kept from people? I mean, is it not available for those who want it? I'm really asking because I usually read science journalism and different countries are having completely different experiences (I'm from Brazil and trust me it's been a nightmare here. At the same time newspapers and the like have been pretty good and there is a huge front of scientists helping to spread realiable information). In my opinion the nuances should not be discussed with the general population on national television, but privately with doctors. And that the general message should be strong and reassuring. Is that misleading? Sure. Have we been doing that for a long time? Hell yeah. Has it worked before? Up until, the antiv movement it has. Is it going to continue working? I still think that when properly done it is the best way (here in my neck of the woods at least).
thank you for this! Being married to a "vaccine sceptic" i can say that a large amount of his hesitancy is due to a lack of public discourse that occupies the middle ground. what has felt like a die hard push for vaccines, a lack of admission that they may be unsuitable for some people, and a lack of research and discourse around finding early treatments is ultimately what put him off. I honestly feel that general communication on the vaccines has been very poor - mainly due to instant shutdown of any questions or worries as 'anit-vax' or 'conspiracy'. rather than call people stupid, why not address their concerns clearly?
You are just saying that our news services gave up proper investigative journalism years ago and just pander to the tribal beliefs of their followers. I agree.
I still remember the fake videos of Chinese people dropping in the streets from some mystery illness which started the Covid ball rolling. The Covid narrative has made me doubt regular vaccines. Was it worth destroying society to give 82 year olds a few extra weeks to live?
Because then they would have to have an open debate and let the other experts speak, and in no time their entire narrative would fall apart... You can't really rely on damage control at that point.
How exactly would you suggest that you address someone that, let's say believes all the statistics are utterly meaningless and purposely faked to make covid-19 look more serious than it actually is? Because this what many of their concerns are similar to. There is absolutely nothing you can tell someone in this position that will not simply make them pull even further back. I'm very curious to hear what your specific response would be to someone like this, because they make up a large portion of the remaining unvaccinated individuals overall.
This is probably the first honest and intelligent take on covid I've heard from a medical professional. Simply admitting you don't know something goes much further to building trust than lying or manipulating the facts.
Thank you for your thoughtful video. Yes, there doesn't seem to be any room for discussion. I stupidly thought that I needed information and discussion to make an informed decision. But I am beginning to realise no one else thinks so. It's either do it this way or go away, no discussion. I have given up talking about it now.
I agree: as it happens he is substantively wrong even on assesssment of vaccine efficacy and safety: if he can’t do the medical bit right, how is he going to take in the broader context?
Nice to see something balanced on the topic. The only thing I would add is that choosing your battles is easier said than done! (Eg people waiting to get married last year would have felt pretty hard done by as sports and hospitality were opened up again. ) It’s hard for us all to agree about the risk/benefit judgements on these cases but some group is always going to feel like they’re the only one making all the sacrifices and I don’t know how you soften that feeling for those who feel overlooked.
Definitely didn't piss off everyone: it's incredibly reassuring to have someone acknowledge my concerns, even if half of them are from one "side" and the rest the other. It truly bothers me when science becomes politicised, because it undermines the very purpose of the pursuit of truth. Your interview with Dr. Nutt may not have been about the same topic directly, but very many points he expressed felt eerily familiar these days. I've been a staunch supporter of the vaccine my entire life, but the sheer volume of coercion and malice directed at people expressing even slight hesitation definitely made me wait a while before getting it. (I eventually did get both shots)
A question: Why does seeing malice directed at people for specific opinions, on it's own, lend credence to the correctness of the opinions of those being demonized? Does it actually imply that? If so, how, and if not, why did it feel that way?
@@Pensnmusic Because those people weren't the crazies. They were genuinely concerned for their own health about whether the vaccine was right for them, for very legitimate reasons. Granted, that doesn't actually lend their concerns direct credence, but if someone is offering you a drink in a bar and you're even slightly concerned about it, and they respond by screaming at you to drink it, chances are you're not going to. I'm a STEM student and I found it very difficult to get helpful information about the development of the vaccine that wasn't ideologically tainted. I was concerned that a medical treatment passed trials in less than a year, but I couldn't get a clear and rational answer about that. I thought I'd better wait and see, then various governments started rather explicitly scapegoating, if not criminalising, people that *chose* not to receive a medical treatment (the right to refuse treatment is, to my knowledge, a cornerstone of modern medicine). I was just pretty spooked and waited for a couple months. People are emotional creatures. I didn't think there was some nefarious plot to poison the population, but I definitely felt a growing mistrust. I do believe people should get vaccinated, but I also believe their choice on the matter should be respected. Hopefully that ramble gets across something of what I felt.
@@Aetherian1 wish everyone could be this articulated, objective and fair. World would be a better place. However ironically it takes a lot of learning; both academic and wisdom gained from life experience, to realise how little we really know!
@@Aetherian1 Anyone care to address how the percentage of the population needing to be vaccinated (for efficacy/public safety/herd immunity/whatever) has steadily increased from (around) 70% to 100%? Even as "break through" cases are being reported...
@@judyd1 Two factors seem to be at play. 1. Scientists (particularly in medicine) generally don't know exactly how anything will behave until they've been able to observe it for quite some time, and even then there can be a great deal of uncertainty in precisely why it behaves as it does and what factors affect that. A disease spreading through a population that don't all share the same behaviour towards it will confound the model hugely. There's a possibility it was underestimated to begin with. 2. Governments manipulating figures, or pushing scientists to manipulate figures, to justify gradually increasing levels of restrictions on freedom for their populace. I believe it's fair to say both are quite likely in many countries, in varying ratios.
so much of "scientific" communication essentially treats science like magic and aims to be as flashy as possible, under the guise of "getting the message across" - but the massage that does get across when you do that can be more harmful than being quiet. I notice this a lot when it comes to the big, flashy communicators of physics, but the same was done with regards to the vaccines and covid in general. Then again, this is not isolated to the sciences either, commentary on far-right politicians, for example, is always hyperbolic, even when the same point could be made on a much more grounded way. In short, people lie and then act surprised when they're not trusted.
@@Samuel-wb8uo not always, especially it's progress and research. Everyone wants to make their piece about the whole of existence and, in my experience, in this process they make physics sound like magic a lot of the time. The nuances, difficulties and uncertainties are gestured at but quickly swept under the rug, as if they were a minor detail, when really they're the most important part of the whole thing.
Yes, I'm starting to loathe this approach. Rather than presenting science as a method which acknowledges uncertainty and then iteratively reduces it. It presents _The Science_ as some ineffable dogma which is handed down to the masses from the elite institutions.
@@iAmTheSquidThing I've been reading a science communication book on AI from the 70's, and it tells me more about science than a lot of popularizers nowadays going on and on about string theory and the possible origins of the cosmos and the new totally about to be proved views on the nature of time and conscience, etc. The way the book manages to stay relevant even though it's a book on AI from over 40 years ago is by focusing on modeling, decision processes and management of uncertainty.
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p Sounds like what you have a problem with is not the flash, but the lies. I completely agree -- many so-called "physics" communicators don't even understand the physics they're teaching (free tip; don't ever bother with SciShow, it's terrible and will leave you dumber than when you started). But that doesn't mean it's right to castrate a presentation, either. Particularly with physics, we have learned certain things to an astounding degree of certainty that's completely unheard of in softer fields like medicine. It would be a disservice to fail to communicate that confidence.
I always appreciate the way you clearly communicate the sources of what you say. This is info from a peer-reviewed study, this is based on my professional training and experience, this is my personal opinion, etc.
This is the sort of discussion I have had to have SO MANY TIMES in the last year with various different people. I for one am very pleased you made this video and have already linked it to a bunch of peeps, we need to discuss and try to understand these nuances on a larger social level and this has become increasingly difficult in the face of the anti-expert 'movement'. With all that to one side though, do you find it at all concerning and/or ironic that the education system which has failed for long enough to allow the general public this staggering level of ignorance and inability to critically analyse data is the same education system now suffering so badly from said ignorance and inability? I cannot help but feel there is some deeply dark humour in there...
Thanks for the excellent video. We definitely need more moderate approach in these debates. Not only was it great to watch but the comment section below this video is actually the first sane discussion on this topic I've ever encountered. I need more of this! (Also, this kinda made me want to be your patient :))
I realised watching your video that my experience with the vaccine is relatively unusual - I got it while I had long covid, which was making my life very difficult to manage. So unlike most I didn't get it in a preventative sense so much as with a hope it would prove curative. Incredibly, I fell into the percentage of LC sufferers who sees an effect - I went down for 2 weeks after the first dose, but then emerged feeling amazing for the first time in a year. The second dose just made me feel a bit down for a few days. The effect was shockingly clear and so I have no doubts whatsoever about efficacy. Had it got it as a healthy person trying to avoid illness, i'd never have known for sure.
And what about the others for which it didn’t work as promised? Also, feeling sick put you in a situation where trying one of many potential remedies was worth a shot. Interesting that taking the vaccines after infection as been touted as too little too late by all mainstream media. And I’ve NEVER read nor heard of this being recommended by a single medical professional.
@@JeepCherokeeful where did you hear that? I’ve never heard any suggestion that you shouldn’t be vaccinated if you’ve already had covid. I know lots of people who had covid and were still encouraged/ got the vaccine. It wasnt recommended that you get the vaccine while you have covid. As in, currently infected. I think the vibe was that if the OP had had the vaccine prior to being infected their symptoms wouldn’t have been so severe. And that giving someone the vaccine while they are on a respirator wouldn’t be effective. Maybe I misunderstood you though. I did get incredibly lost in my countries guidelines for exposure, couldn’t make head or tail of what they wanted me to do. 😂
Thanks for a balanced review. It's a breath of fresh air. I've seen a few medical professionals doing this, but they are still few. Sadly, this nuance is almost entirely absent from the rest of the population, and drowns out the voices of the reasonable.
Happy New Year! Not pissed off and happy that you've taking the time express your opinions, analysis and observations through all this in a disarmingly humorous way.
Thank you so much for making this video! You pretty much capture exactly where I stand on all of the issues you address. Thanks for having the guts to do this.
The ICNARC (UK ICU) data shows that it is overwhelmingly the 'unvaccinated' who end up in intensive care. This is questionable because of the definition of unvaccinated being used which is that vaccination only begins two weeks after being injected. So if the injections are causing hospitalisation within 2 weeks it is attributed to being unvaccinated. That data is questionable.
This might just be the most important video on youtube right now Clear, consise, free from political or corprate agenda Just a good doctor explaining the situation as it is
Thanks Rohin for being a voice of reason in the chorus of insanity. From a locked-down, stores closed on Sundays, schools closed for 2 more weeks, 10pm-5am curfewed Quebec...
Ah yes, the classic "let's curfew people at night because the coof is nocturnal" science-based approach lol Feel your pain, in my country they decided to close shops earlier. This of course means that more people have to go shop for food at the same time and propagation is increased but retar-I mean politic don't let that go in the way of their little power trip and eroding public trust. Risks and benefits.
I am fully vaccinated but was left with a nerve issue in my arm that still persists months after. I'll never know if it was caused by vaccination, but the fact that my doctors refused to report it as an adverse event makes me skeptical that this process is actually going to catch issues with side effects. I still recommend everyone get vaccinated since obviously it's quite rare, but I have less faith in the system now, will not be getting boosters, and I am more open minded towards those who are against vaccination, even if most of them are idiots
The more I talk to people the more I hear of stories of lingering post-vaccination issues, they hardly ever say that it was caused by the vaccine, but they won't stop complaining about them nonetheless. Perhaps you are not as rare as you think.
@@Bayonet1809 Yeah I'm not alone, many stories online, and while I was at the neurologist, I overheard the room next door also complaining about issues right after vaccine
![COVID in India: What Went Wrong? [FUNDRAISER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DyXq88MrAVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
You can sign up for my (free) newsletter here to get more misinformed waffling: medlife.substack.com/
One of the two newsletter I actually read.
I just want a beard
@@tamara3984 is the other one tom scotts
I love to say that I do my research before making decisions. unfortunately I don't always have the time to read 100 different articles and figure out which ones are the best...
Xian China has both covid and hemoragic fever. Maybe there will be some hyper recombination event and that will be the next pandemic. Merry Christmas Doctor, to you and your family! Thanks for your words of encouragement as always, it's a shame that we live in a world where even the concept of informed consent can be politicised,
"there will be far more harmful diseases, and worse pandemics in our future, maybe not that far away!"
happy new year right back at you Rohin
oh yeah... that bit wasn't exactly fun...
No one will forget the death plague of Colbitis that swept the globe in 2023 and caused millions to lose the ability to tell yo mama jokes less than 4 hours in duration
My favourite funny canadian watches my favourite funny doctor? I'm shocked
hey Matt❗
O piss here. Thanks for your time and insight.
Also - admitting failures and limitations increases trust - YES! It's something about public life I've never been able to wrap my head around, politicians and other people seeing it as a bad thing to own their mistakes.
Mistaking human error for weakness is unfortunately extremely common.
Politician said he once saw a UFO. Destroyed his campaign. It's not about honesty, it's about how stupid people are.
Well, not really. Blind Confidence is what creates trust to the foolish
@@KezanzatheGreat And admitting failures gives them fuel and trying to hide failures gives them even more fuel. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is to stop giving a fuck and admit your failures just because it's the most productive way to mover forward, regardless of short term stupidity trying to discredit you.
Trust isn't increased with admitting failures, but by building your trust sustainably with reliable motives and outcomes. I mean, I can admit I'm wrong about a lot of things about covid and vaccines. Doesn't give you trust in my expertise, I hope, because I have none. I'm not a scientist, doctor, or statistician, that's why I'm wrong so much, even if I think I've understood science communicators who presented the evidence to me.
I think your comment shows the nuance a lot better. Uncertainty and human error are often mistaken for weakness. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. My uncertainty about my ability to answer questions about a topic can be a strength and my inability is a weakness. It's all relative and those who don't see that probably won't be persuaded to see it that way either, because that would contradict the entire point of indulging in oversimplifying everything to have a sense of control, while pushing away the one thing that gives control: information. You can't fight an allergy for information with information about how much more nuanced it is, just as milk won't cure lactose intolerance.
If you think the so called "vaccine hesitant" people will trust in medicine after failures are acknowledged you must be lliving on a different planet.
I really appreciate this Rohin - you seem largely worn out by the polarisation of Covid and lack of evidence-based thinking, but I appreciate your taking the nuanced route. We need conversations like this.
personally I trust someone who admits they don't know for sure, but is able to give me their well-informed best guess, far more than someone who just has a very loud unshakeable opinion based on not very much evidence!
Unfortunately most people don't seem to be like you.
I too would much rather have questions we can't answer than answers we can't question.
@@bpj1805 you'd be surprised. Honesty, even if it doesn't placate your side, shows an immense level of integrity to most, which is something that's greatly lacking in the public landscape of today. People really respond positively to it for the most part.
Would've fucking appreciated Fauci saying "Don't wear masks because we don't have enough for medical workers" instead of saying "masks are ineffective" at the start of the Pandemic. Literally no need to lie, just be truthful and give the rational explanation. Instead you now created a bunch of conspiracy right wingers
Problem is the 'very loud unshakable opinions' are the ones heard by the most people because the voices they come from are so loud. So, those louder opinions are more widely adopted than opinions not fully formed but formed from good evidence. This is how misinformation is spread.
Also, unfortunately, people don't like and don't feel comfortable hearing 'I don't know'. This leads to people doing research on their own which inevitably leads to false information being seen and spread. On top of all of that, admitting you don't know is perceived as negative and weak. It's easy to pick apart. So, politicians and media don't say 'I don't know', they say something else which might not be correct but looks better then saying 'I don't know'.
TL;DR:
In today's society it's easier to lie when in need of instant answers than be honest.
’Way back in the 1980s I wrote a research paper for a psychology class. I began it with an epigraph:
“People don't ask for facts in making up their minds. They would rather have one good, soul-satisfying emotion than a dozen facts.”
-- Robert Keith Leavitt, _Voyages and Discoveries,_ 1939
Things haven't changed much in the intervening 82 years.
Things haven't changed in thousands of years. Human brain is the same as it was in the stone age. Evolution does not happen quickly.
God, I would *_LOVE_* some facts. But all we can get is statistics, formulated in such a way as to not be able to glean much relevant information on which to based my informed consent. I mean, the FDA are actively seeking to hide the basis of the approval for the Pfizer vaccine, for 55 years. If you're not questioning why, when it took them just 108 days to review them before the approval, then you're simply choosing to be kept in the dark.
Amazing cognitive function paired with terrible emotional regulation tends to produce this kind of result.
The way you phrased that made me think you were saying the 1980s were 82 years ago 😂
@@nedisahonkey Sometimes it feels like it. 😀
Thank you! I have no medical background, so I can judge studies and evidence even less, but I am feeling increasingly worried that people are getting "religious" about *everything* when it comes to COVID and policies for fighting the pandemic. Here in Germany we are seeing the same tribalism, and a frightening inability of politicians and administration to address the issues that are making people sceptical of official advice and policies. In essence, each side is driving the other to entrench even deeper.
Politicians have no power. Power is an illusion that you need to believe in for it to work. More and more people stop believing in it. A wild west society might be dangerous but definitely more honest than the current hypocritical bs we call society.
If idiots shout false facts loudly, you loose if you are quietly expert. The very fact of extreme views held extremely needs to be addressed immediately, with noise and vigor or the promoters of falsehood gain strength rapidly. Give them a mm and they will take a meter.
@@davidrowewtl6811 The more one learns how powerful people abuse their power and break their own rules the less we should be surprised that people radicalize. It's a homemade problem as the fish starts rotting at the head. The elites are just pissed that we want a piece of the cake. Their deceitful lies that kept them in power for so long do not work anymore. Since we regular people cannot win fairly against them as they own the fricking system the only way to do so is to do what they do and break the rules. It's like a Casino: If you play by the rules the house always wins. They win because we blindly obey them. As George Carlin said: The game is rigged. So we shouldn't be surprised if civil war will break out any time soon.
@@laaaliiiluuu a) Wild West mentality is a terrible combination of egocentric thinking and behaviour (everybody fighting for him- or herself) plus a severe lack of governmental protection meaning the law gets cast aside bc the government is to weak to enforce it. That is a guarantee for the demise of any society.
No thanks to that!
@@laaaliiiluuu
And don’t blame your antisocial behaviour on anyone else than yourself.
YOU can do the right thing even when politicians or other “leaders” are hypocritically doing one thing while preaching another.
I found it very interesting that you actually mention that health care workers are leaving the field due to the pandemic. Having to be on the front lines of this for two years, with ever switching information, regulations and, depending on your country, terrible communication just seems so draining. As a med student myself this pandemic has opened my eyes a lot to the treatment of the government and the general public towards health care workers - at least here in Switzerland it's pretty saddening.
Also, the thumb nail is a 10/10 from me, bravo Rohin.
All of this miscommunication top-down drenching from the governments. It would be so much better if each and everyone could just decide from themselves, because the government clearly don't know anything about what they are trying to regulate. Doing nothing would literally be better... (but they can't do that, can they?)
I fully believe the Gov. knows full well what they’re doing, and they are doing what we’ve seen for specific reasons (probably mostly lucrative and somewhat nefarious). I agree with you though, doing literally nothing would be probably more effective, but you know people want left alone and the Gov. can’t help but not leave people alone.
I had a recent back and forth in the UA-cam comments section with someone claiming to be a long time nurse who has worked in intensive care and with COVID patients. She claimed she had natural immunity from catching COVID earlier, and therefore didn't want to get the vaccine. Consequently, she was fired from her job as a nurse.
Given that she opted to be fired rather than be vaccinated, I was genuinely curious as to why she made that decision. Her response was that it was none of my business. Which is true, but it made me even more doubtful about her story. I feel she's most likely just an anti-vaxxer telling lies. But I could be wrong about that, and I'm still interested in hearing the reasoning of anyone from the medical profession who has chosen to leave that profession rather than get vaccinated. Aside from the very obvious reason that they have a medical exemption, of course.
@@rodh1404 At least in Germany, over 9000 (insert Dragonball joke here) medical workers had left even before vaccination became mandatory for them (which only happened last month) - because they were worked to the bone and burnt out. And I saw one nurse on Twitter mention recently that half their ward handed in their resignation because the hospital had announced they'd be moved from regular care to Covid ICU after the weekend. Without one bit of ICU training. Management apparently got the message, shuffled things around a bit and moved them to isolation wards instead, which made at least a few (but not all) come back.
Just like with Covid deniers and such in general, I feel nurses quitting over mandatory vaccination are a tiny but vocal minority. I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to them, but we shouldn't forget all the people who broke after being called "heroes" - and all the support they got was applause and a lavender bush. (Not a joke, btw.)
@@rodh1404 its not just nurses that got fired or left their job. Doctors have also left or fired. Why? Other opinions are being disbanned. They are not allowing other medications, or other scientific data. People are finding out there is an evil agenda behind what is currently going on.
Thanks for talking about the risk/benefit ratio. Being told that vaccines are 100% safe makes them seem less likely to be trusted. Being told that they're a little bit risky, and yet they're still worth it seems the better thing to say.
Exactly.. There is no medicine known to man that is 100% safe so calling any medicine 100% safe should set off alarm bells in anyone with any understanding of science.
The problem is that they’re not really claimed to be 100% safe, but the public has been trained to think that calling something safe means the same as having absolutely no risk. And I can’t blame them when the nanny state has been trying so hard to make life absolutely risk free.
@@ian1352 Well not anymore they are not.. But when they first came out they were. At least in my country.
Pushing a substandard vax as some panacea that will fix everything long after it's clear it isn't and it won't and even changing the definition of vax to cover for it is what is destroying trust. There's always been side effects with every medical treatment of any kind, but when it may not even protect against the disease it is supposed to protect against in the first place, that really skews the risk/reward calculation. And when it's impossible to even discuss those things without getting cancelled, or get any unbiased information, it makes it really hard to even calculate risk/reward.
@@bubba99009 Literally none of that is true.
As a graduate student in a non-medical discipline, I have a deep respect for experts who come out and say in public, "I don't know (for sure)."
Its always so naive when some people thing that because some vaccines work well, that means anything called a vaccine will be great.
"All vaccines work" is a bit like saying "Car accidents cannot happen because i normally see cars doing fine, so we should never consider it"
I am not an expert nor I have any medical degree or anything to do with medical community but I saw it from mile away from the very first day. Imagine being doctors and falling for this shit LMAO
@@MojKanal-cz1iz dude, noticing and thinking and using your own eyes and ears is not allowed
how dare you to think for yourself when the corporations clearly say what you should do and how to think?
-1000 social points chud
It's refreshing to hear someone intelligent talking about these issues. It's okay to say we don't have all the answers, but please don't make decisions based on Facebook memes.
Or media talking heads
Or your average joe on youtube
@@boio_ Exactly. Go talk to your family doctor. Get a second opinion from another local family doctor. Listen to what they have to say about the various concerns that you have. That will get you much farther than social media will 99.9% of the time.
@@Pensnmusic People don't trust doctors. They believe they are compromised by "big pharma" and just "shills for pills". Everyone thinks in black-and-white - no one thinks "While some GPs might have shady morals, most of them got into it to do good" or "While some pharma companies have sometimes done the wrong thing at specific points, what they produce, by-and-large, eases a multitude of suffering, globally".
@@boio_ Unfortunately it's not just "average joes" commenting. You can easily find full professors of biology, qualified doctors and other semi-qualified people who sound like they are very serious, not cranks, looking at the science, etc, and who are also promoting rubbish - either because they've been misled, they're not as smart as they should be, or because they are making a buck out of their 15 minutes of fame as a "dissident" who is supposedly asking the hard questions no one else is and "exposing the real truth" and supposedly saving us all from nefarious political and pharma conspiring.
I think you’re right that this will piss off both sides. You pissed me off with that abrupt end to your video. Lol
Ending was best :) dude was not sharing that IPA. dont blame him. :)
I too am enraged!
Grapefruit IPA sounds good, I’m pissed of that I can’t have some.
I’m pissed off because I was expecting to be pissed off when Rohin characterized a rabid “pro-vax” crowd, and then everything he said about the nuances of vaccination was just plain good scientific reasoning as any professional scientist or doctor should do, and I agreed with it all, which pisses me off.
;)
It certianly didn't piss me off, but not being a regular of your channel I wasn't sure where it was going to go, and I did make it to the end!
I fully agree it is rather bizarre that two years into this, we still seem to know so little.
FWIW, I am triple vaxxed, but have questions on narrative purity tests, for example how any discussions of non-vaccine treatments and prophylactics have been systematically shut down by orchestrated smear campaigns rather than being open to debate: this is not the scientific method. It shouldn't be a string of tribal false dichotomies: there can be more than one approach.
There's a good reason that non vaccine treatments has been shut down, just follow the money
It's reactionary. Laypeople see misinformation and think they can weigh in to 'help out', but they end up muddying the waters further. They may be better at critical thinking, but many aren't any authority on health advice, and many more can't have a civilised debate.
Radicalisation occurs when people believe their opponents to be intellectually compromised and unworthy of debate.
This video made me feel like I was back way back when, before all this, when you actually could discuss things and *everything* wasn't black or white.
Thank you for bringing some nuance.
I do consider stuff like whether the planet is older than 6000 years to be very black and white, but before 2016 I would have been excited to share how we know that because it's really cool and the person would be far more likely to hear me out about it, while now I am just bloody exhausted with people who bicker against stuff for the sake of being contrary and assholey and high fiving each other for yelling the loudest and ugliest, instead of people just having had a mere gap in their knowledge base.
@@Call-me-Al Ofcourse, that's not what I'm saying. Simply meant that now everthying's been mixed up with some weird notion (by many people, far from everybody) that everything is "us" against "them". Facts doesn't matter, nothing matters anymore.
@@tessiepinkman Things changed when science got power. Power corrupts is the adage and it is true. Men like Fauci are unelected tyrants.
Most things were never black and white, but people still liked to act as though they were. Just try to have a rational discussion about economic systems.
@@aclark903 That’s a silly claim. Reminds me of the ludicrous claims people make about the European Union. Besides the fact that the majority of people in government are unelected.
Really appreciate this video and quite enjoyed this 'sit and gab' style of content. Always happy to hear the things that have been rattling around in your mind for a few weeks/months. Thanks for all that you've done and continue to do to keep us informed and entertained. Take care, Doc :)
Your compassion and dedication to reason are really heart warming and hope-bearing. Thanks a lot!
I actually stumbled over this channel when looking up whether is Keto diet bullshit or not and I kinda avoided Covid content here and elsewhere. I really appreciated the interview with David Nutt and I thank you for the laughs from unhelpful answers. I wish you a good new year (I hope for all our sakes it would be better than the last).
Just give keto a shot for a month or so and see whether it does anything for you is my advice.
Judging from personal experience and experiences from acquaintances, it seems the effect of keto (and presumably other diets) is much different from individual to individual for some reason, perhaps something to do with genetics.
In any case, after a month of really sticking to it you'll know whether or not it helps you. For me personally it made a huge positive difference in blood pressure, blood test results(!) and overall feeling better, while for my best buddy it did pretty much the opposite lol.
Keto diet is definitely bullshit. Intermittent fasting is the actual "ketogenic" diet. That's how you enter ketosis. But telling people to not eat for stretches of time isn't marketable, it can't be sold. Hence the keto diet.
@@paulj6805 I mean the point is to *stay* in ketosis pretty much indefinitely, not just going in and out of it.
As for marketability, I can't deny I've seen some keto products cropping up lately, but personally I haven't bothered with any of them and my money spent on food has gone down drastically since keto. The only thing I've done is watch a couple videos and a whole bunch of googling and reading and those avenues are very much being used for marketing intermittend fasting too.
Although I will say I also do intermittend fasting, but I'm only able to stick to it because keto stopped me from being hungry all the time.
I've tried it multiple times in the past without and could never stick to it more than a few days, while now it happens automatically, I can even skip eating altogether for a day without feeling hungry or low on energy at any point.
I think keto and intermittend fasting go hand in hand. Who knows, maybe my benefits really are mostly from intermittend fasting but whatever it is, it's been working well for me and it's saved me a ton of money lol.
I've been on Keto for 4+ years after being diagnosed pre-diabetic. My a1c numbers remain normal, I've not regained the 30lbs I've lost, and I still eat one meal a day while maintaining aerobic activity several times a week.
@@Hope4all2 I'm not saying the keto diet isn't better than eating McDonald's and drinking soda all day. And cutting out carbs is always going to provide benefits regardless. But it has literally nothing to do with "ketosis" aka, it's namesake. Look it up and realize what ketosis actually is. Best wishes.
Mate, what a wonderful brain you got! And this is why having family doctors is so important, if people had the opportunity to discuss with their family doctor that they know and trust, they wouldn't fall for all the wild theories out there...
What's a "family doctor"?
@@DarkMoonDroid A doctor that pacroces general health, and is the main doctor that you go to. i.e: "Primary doctor."
@@DarkMoonDroid Your GP would be considered a family doctor. Person you take yourself and your kids to whenever something weird comes up.
FYI he is a heart surgeon not a family doctor
@@johnimg Cardiologist in fact.
Statistics can be really muddy sometimes. At least in my family, the vaccinations seemed to have paid off.
Though I wonder if there are people who became vaccine skeptics or anti-vaxxers not in spite of media's attempts to combat them but because of media's attempts to combat them.
I'm not sure if there are people who became antivaxers because of that but there absolutely are people who chose not to take COVID vaccine because of that.
Most people who showed some kind of resistance towards COVID vaccination simply had a trust issue with it (all the usual arguments such as the vaccine being developed too quickly, not tested enough, etc.). And that's how it should have been addressed - explain, provide facts, answer questions and most importantly, make sure you are perceived as someone who is on their side. Instead, these people were blackmailed, insulted and basically told not to ask questions. It doesn't take a PhD to understand that this simply isn't helping to build the trust but rather it completely damages it. If you stand in the middle and have to choose your side, you won't choose the one which is actively attacking you. Promoting a product by insulting potential "customers" is the dumbest marketing in the history of the planet.
Whether this translates into lower support for vaccination in general (rather than just COVID vaccine) remains to be seen. What I perceive as a risk is that in certain countries it became a cultural war and people who chose not to get vaccinated were pushed out of certain social circles and naturally will now socialise in communities far more susceptible to disinformation.
There are. I am one example. I'm not afraid to speak about my own experiences.
I decided at the start that I'd be responsible. I'd follow the rules for isolation. But I would wait until the vaccine was well documented before I allowed it into my body. I was skeptical, completely, but I was willing to listen to it. I feel my decision was correct for myself - though it may not suit anyone else. It seems that there are still areas less explored, like immune cells passing through the umbilical cord (which isn't supposed to happen as far as I know), myocarditis, all those other terms everyone knows of. We'll only know, a few years down the line.
I must be exact. I did not party and I did not needlessly socialise, and I wore my mask when I was out. And I isolated when I did catch Covid eventually. I spread it to not one person in my college. When the mandate occurred in Austria, and in Biden's America, I started to notice authority gaining more and more power. As political talking-heads went back on everything they spoke about, the distrust grew. Not for any hate of science. But for a hate of authoritarians. It is my political belief that the government has no right to put me into an ultimatum, where I need to choose between my work and my life. That has not changed and will not change - medicine is not an exception to sell out all my beliefs on. I satisfied every other belief as required.
By the "pro-science" community, I have been compared to Trump supporters (I hated Trump before), an anti-masker (I wore N95s exclusively), anti-science (I study science in college, in my final year), and so on. This is purely in UA-cam comment sections.
In terms of the media I consume, I exclusively follow Mainstream Media. Sky News, CNN, all the fairly Liberal stuff, except for Russia Today and one other channel. I have yet to watch Joe Rogan's podcast on Covid 19, but I have heard of it. The other channel I watch is dedicated to taking the piss out of MSM - it is called "Memology", and it highlights the flip flopping of the politics of Covid 19.
After being attacked for being skeptical of the data being reported and very little explanation for the questionable aspects (like PCR using 40 cycles - I found out the explanation later on), I often found I was more angry at the pro-vaccine groups that believed a health crisis warrants this type of authority. I genuinely still believe that Goebbels himself would take notes on how this pandemic has been spun.
@@samomuransky4455 Sorry. It seems my comment got deleted for wrongthink.
Your comment was very correct, regarding myself. I didn't really trust the government to begin with. They were manipulative before, and they will be manipulative after. So it wasn't too hard to accept that they'd be manipulative during the pandemic.
I particularly hate crowds who wave their moral superiority around. It feels as though religion has been replaced with science. The faith is still there, and so is the blind obedience. There was no room for anyone to be skeptical. It was denounced as anti-science to question the narrative. It still is. The result we have is not a healthy environment. Here is a funny thing. If you type depo*ulation into UA-cam, your comment is deleted. I theorise this is a defence against the jab but what will your average conspiracy theorist think about that? Even assuming I am incorrect - which I'm not convinced by - what happens when you censor one side of the debate so they can't actually communicate with good information?
Having my employment terminated even though I could still walk around in public was enough for me to tell them to get f*** with their poison jabs.
I mean.
If somebody on Monday says “i want to kill you” and proceeds to come Friday hand you a syringe full of fluid you don’t know the composition of saying “inject this it will keep you healthy”
There is a very reasonable reaction of saying “no, thats probably full of poison, im not taking that”
General principle applies, you must be both correct AND trustworthy to be helpful and good, lacking either means your actions will result in bad.
Your videos are always so very well put
You put across the nuance of the issues at hand, and that's something that seems to have disappeared altogether on the internet in general 😔
The obsession with all-or-nothing takes on COVID subjects is a huge problem, and I appreciate your simple recognition that not everything is simple. Nuance and uncertainty is not only acceptable, but should be preferred IMO. The religiosity of COVID-related punditry--on both sides--is creepy and has done a great deal to undermine public trust.
The all or nothing approach seems to be the assurance of compliance. Social behavioural science advisers to government need to be held more accountable because they wield great power. If you take the vaccines as an example, imagine just before the roll out in the UK 1 year ago there was ambiguity about safety, natural immunity etc, people are mostly logical and they would think do I really need this vaccine. Instead the matter was made binary with pretty seemingly heavy consequences for not complying. Just think back to the scaremongering, the messaging about vaccines being the only way out, the lack of discussion/acknowledgment surrounding natural immunity. They even got the public to stigmatise the unvaccinated and created a de facto second class citizen. When the only tool you have is a hammer all your problems will look like nails.
I think that is much more the fault of politics than science. The way national governments have responded to the pandemic has been pretty bad, consistently bad. Giant egos, the terror of more international institutional control, a sense of complacency, you name it. Public health systems are 'so 19th Century' etc.
But as he says more are coming, especially driven by global warming and habitat destruction, and the next one may not be so _kind_ as this one has been! Dear god.
You forgot about medics' part in that - by blindly following Big Pharma guidelines, scared to lose their licenses, studies designed to fail for medications that cannot give good profits, decreased requirements to where exactly they put their needles, "the cure" with placebo effectiveness for $3000 per course based on unfinished tests and so on.
@@winstonsmasterplan "people are mostly logical"
Edwards : Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
Kay : A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.
----
Though, good for acknowledging that public communication and policy depend on psychology as much as anything else. We want nuance, of course... We're literally watching a skeptical doctor on youtube. We aren't most people. Simplicity and clarity, even when it strips away important nuance, is highly desired by a whole lot of people (and organizations).
@@winstonsmasterplan " Social behavioural science advisers to government need to be held more accountable because they wield great power. "
They used the situation to, instead of doing their jobs they were trusted to, to do a power-grab for political reasons (who knows for what). Then they wonder why the public is unanimous united in their distrust of the government.
I've seem a lot of people not complying just for the sake of non-complying with the government.
And as the government went back and forth with (we should lock down, now not, now vaccinate, now not), each and every time, the person would just take the opposite instance, which was funny to watch, but a silly game to play.
Something will have to change, this can't be allowed to pass the next time.
Doing literally nothing would have been better than what they did.
THANK YOU!!!! Finally a reasonable, nuanced discussion of this complex topic
Hey Liv thanks for stopping by, hope you’re well. HNY!
You're one of the most underrated content makers, both entertaining, factual and nuanced. Great video as always, that gives lots of things to think about.
It’s really frustrating how this pandemic keeps changing. First with Delta, now with Omicron. The risk/reward ratio changes all the time, the science is hard to understand, and everything gets politicised.
It’s so hard to find a good source to help sort through and interpret this stuff, and I know you’re just some guy on the internet, but I appreciate your perspective.
It's also worth remembering that policies are easy to criticize with hindsight, but many of them must be taken before all the data is in. If governments don't do enough, they get blamed for people dying, but if they do too much and nothing happens, they get blamed too. The latter is extra tricky, because it's open to survivorship bias. Just because nothing happened with all the restrictions doesn't mean the restrictions were useless, or too strong. People love to pick apart every single public health policy to shred, but it definitely isn't an easy job.
@@ehsan_kia I always say this, even with the world shutting down 5.5 million people still died, not to mention all the long term effects of the virus.
Part of the problem is that this isn't happening on some distant planet, deep down in the ocean, in a computer simulation, or in a test tube. The virus is here now, and either you or your neighbours have had it (assuming you have 10 neighbours) and more will have it, and hospitals were overloaded in some regions at various times within these last 2 years. There isn't really space to implement robust science when this means the choice between measures being taken to save someone and measures not being taken. Ethical concern. Material isn't arbitrarily available, cohorts aren't well documented and comparable, this all prevents quality science from being done. The data isn't going to be particularly reliable or particularly timely for a long time to come. The problem isn't just finding good data, it's that all data is tainted.
What we need to do is find a way to deal with this fundamental lack of information. To make robust decisions that should by all reason have sensible outcomes in the face of a huge window of possible developments.
How? Beats me. Political climate makes it ever more difficult, in part because people are burned by the bad prior decisionmaking.
In the first days, the decisions were simple. Korea and Taiwan were doing it right. If it turned out to be a nothingburger, they would have suffered a couple weeks of economic downtime, not ideal, but easy enough to recover from. On the opposite end of window of possibilities, massive loss of human life and collapse of civilisation as we know it. The reality turned out to be smack dab in between those, and yet in hindsight, also the precautionary approach was validated. But given the situation we have on our hands now, there is no definitely correct way to go any longer.
@@SianaGearz The correct thing to do has become political. Its more obvious in the US where people are leaving the democrat states and their constant lockdowns restrictions and mandates and choosing to move to republican states where there is more freedom. Many people are choosing to live free lives of higher risk, others are choosing minimum risk and massive government restrictions. Its a clash of very different world views. Freedom and self determination vs restrictions and state control.
Or to fly the flag of the side i fall on. Freedom and liberty vs the tyranny of the state putting their boot on your neck and forcing you to comply
It's frustrating, but that's life.. well.. some would argue that viruses aren't alive, but yeah 🤷♂️.. I think the important thing is that people making decisions should be trying their best to listen to the consensus of medical experts, and attempting to sort this mess out best they can. Are they doing that? 🤷♂️ hopefully. I figure it's in their interest to sort this out, so we can all work+pay tax, but that doesn't stop incompetence..
It's certainly dragging on, everyone is just sick of all this nonsense, but the way I see it- leaders need to just be honest and open about what they know, what they don't know, why they are making their decisions etc. Because communication has just been a nightmare, and just getting told what the new restrictions are, without any explanation of the motivations behind these plans, is what causes a lot of the problems because people just speculate about the motivations...
look for evidence to back up this speculation..
become convinced their speculations are true..
aaaaaand that's literally how conspiracy theories begin.
Avoid assuming motivations, and life is a lot less stressful, because you stop inventing extra problems on top of the ones that actually exist
Incredible content dude, I really enjoy your slightly hangdog, world weary delivery. Please don't lose your drive and motivation to deliver such content in a fashion that interested laymen, like me, can understand.
Last, but absolutely not least, huge respect to you and your fellow healthcare professionals - an incredible calling and honourable, worthwhile work - you guys rock!
I Love the "Old English journal of medicine" videos I have watched them more than once. The one about cocaine was a wild ride. Keep making videos that you want and I will keep watching everyone of them.
Honestly thank you from not posting covid videos, because it's very overwhelming to go through the disperancy between countries. I'm Indian and nothing here has become "normal", we are under massive health, economic and many other crisis. I watch your videos for general health related knowledge like every other joe. If I wanted to learn about covid there are bazillion videos for that, but I know nothing is under my control except for the guidelines and vaccine ofcourse. Even the word covid is triggering my mental health at this point. Genuinely thank you!
Lockdowns are a lie.
Nothing has become normal anywhere. Some people are getting employed at record breaking rates while many people are losing jobs at record breaking rates. It’s a bad phase for literally everyone. Maybe we can find solace in that and help each other out in our miseries.
Its terrible whats happening in your country, and your and everyone else’s mental health. I have friends i worry about there.
Ive taken the American tradition of using dark humor to deal with the situation. The whole world has gone to absolute shit
This is among the most balanced monologue on vaccine. You have helped me make a decision about the vaccine. Thank you for speaking even though you felt tired of doing it.
and what was your decision?
@@OersJ that there is no conspiracy about the vaccine and I'll take only when I need it and not a minute before i.e. if I traveling out the could try
@@OersJ lol just like all the other sheep.... fully jabbed awaiting their micro clots.
Thank Tom Scott for putting myself and thousands of others onto your channel. Thank you for once again doing your utmost to contribute to the dialogue in what I believe to be some of the most valuable contributions we have seen since 2019.
Thank you for making this. The last two years have broken me in terms of feeling alienated from almost every person I know- whether my deeply conservative family or very liberal colleaugues. Hearing you articulate the thoughts in my head so clearly and rationally moved me, nearly to tears. However many people you piss off with this video, at least one person is extremely grateful.
Don’t you love how people kept touting “trust the science” as if it was a religion, not an empirical process of thinking and questioning
brownieboill: You are so right. That phrase has begun to really irritate me....
If you trust the science it stops being science.
It's not science one shouldn't trust, as in "the scientific method", which has excellent data gathering advantages and to a lesser extent a means of interpretation. It's the greedy "bar stewards" that profit from it that need to be considered to be *wholeheartedly* untrustworthy !!! Just check out their track record. They are #%^&ing murderers !!!!
I don't know who "liked" my comment, but it was damn quick, i.e. within a minute of posting !!!
It's more trust the medical doctors who have spent years learning about the science. When they advise taking the vaccine that's enough for me
Does this channel count as medical work experience
No it actually counts as full residency
Definately claim it on your tax return
@@MedlifeCrisis this is the greatest life hack I’ve come across
Reinforcement Learning 101: you make a video on Covid, you’re caught by the algorithm and you get tons of views; you spend hours making quality content on anything else, YT ignores it and you get mediocre view counts… Guess what most other UA-camrs will do and continue doing? Glad you’re standing your ground! Love your content.
For me, I was always pro-vaxx. I have my vaccine calendar complete (idk what it's called in other countries). But when the pandemic started I doubted the vaccines, I still got 2 doses of sinopharm. But now I doubt even more. In my country politicians changed their opinions and measures a ton in a matter of weeks, they didn't decide well. I also stopped trusting the UN with its handling at the beginning of the pandemic. I'm still pro vaxx, but I doubt the government and the media even more. I can't stand watching 5 minutes of news like I did before all of this.
I don’t watch the news anymore
@@scrumptious9673 I haven't watched news for ages, I rather read them. But when in Finland the COVID was raging in 2020 I did watch the daily COVID watch program in our public television channel. IMHO it was clear, very scientific and informative, but there were those who accused it being brain washing. You can't please everybody and politicians should understand that.
I've come to the conclusion that Dr's are quacks, when I saw how they were towing the lie here in Australia that was enough. Never will 'trust' them ever again. Oh and I told them to shove their shot.
@@topilinkala1594 How come? It is hard to please people with brainwashing, if they don't like brainwashing.
You should stop believing government narratives, as if they were facts.
No thanks, I prefer to get cured if or when I get sick as opposed to preventing it from happening by giving it to myself.
Fact: You will not be able to life insurance now. Those companies know it's bad and will not take a risk on those who get it.
More than a year ago now, one of my bosses wrote something in an internal piece on COVID - if, almost a year into the pandemic, you're still operating in crisis mode, you don't understand what the word "crisis" means.
The way I see it, that's really the core of the issue, because a lot of policy decisions seem to be, in fact, still made as if there was no data to work off of. The result is a rapidly changing mess of rules, regulations and other messaging that only help those trying to polarize rather than those trying to actually understand what's going on and how to act sensibly. Vaccines just get caught up in that larger issue.
Yes, all the relevant information is out there and can be found quite easily, but to someone with no prior knowledge or interest in medical topics, one-sided, incomplete and often misleading messaging is often the easiest to find and seemingly the easiest to understand - and that's the one thing that truly terrifies me about the pandemic, because it isn't just going to go away as the actual danger from the virus will.
amen friend
Why do you assume the danger from the virus will "go away"? I know he mentions in the video something along these lines too, but I wonder where that assumption comes from.
Many viruses that we think of as dead still pop back up regularly when people forget why they disappeared.
Unless there's some science that shows its dissipating in some way, I'd be happy to be informed of it.
@@JohnGottschalk I never wrote or implied that the virus would go away and I don't know of any credible source making that claim. What I *did* write, though perhaps not quite as explicitly as I should have, is that the virus will eventually cease to be a major public health issue and take its place in the long lineup of seasonal respiratory diseases - extremely annoying to most, potentially lethal to some, but largely not something to worry about as far as medical resources go. Between fairly successful vaccination programs and the virus becoming endemic to the population (meaning that near enough everyone has a constant, low-level exposure and at least some level of immunity), this outcome is currently considered to be the most likely in published research.
@@jandl1jph766 there is another mitigating adjustment called "survival of the fittest". This is how we survived the plague of syphilis, it killed almost all of the susceptible and only those whose immune systems protected them are our ancestors. This is how we manage herd immunity if all other methods fail. Well, there is the virus attenuating and a slight improvement in immune reaction after survival of the first exposure as well.
The reason is simple. Governments today don't make policiy decisions according to the highest quality data. They make decisions based on what information the media makes most available to the public even when it's wrong. Because any politician who contradicts the media is going to have a hard time when the next election cycle coems round.
Thank you for being straightforward and level-headed. It's excellent to have an update without fearmongering. All of the best for 2022!
would you tell what this actually means for you? ie do you get the vaccine or do you not? and why?
@@OersJ I have received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine and will go for my booster once it's available. Of course there will be some unforeseen issues. We live in "interesting times".
Thank you for this video. As someone who is skeptical by nature but not qualified to judge the merit of scientific research I've always tried to follow to scientific consensus. These past two years have really taken a toll on my ability to trust the consensus. As I understand it, modern science is largely based on trust because although the research should be repeatable its not really practical to start validating complicated research by replicating it and that is why we must be able to trust the people publishing the research, which is achieved by judging the publishers past merits and their ability to defend their findings against a court of their peers who may be skeptical. Its really hard for me to wrap my head around how any of this can work now that we have started censoring both the criticisms coming from the peers, no matter how qualified they have previously been, and all research producing "undesirable" results? How is it possible that previously highly esteemed scientists can now be considered crazy crackpots worthy of censorship if they ask the wrong questions? If we supposedly can't trust them anymore should we also call into question their previously published research? Are positive results worthy of anything if the negative results are censored? I feel like this pandemic has damaged the very foundation of science as badly as it has people's lives and the economy, and it is just incredibly sad..
Thank you for this balanced view. My problem with decision-making around pandemic issues is similar to the whole thing with commenting on high-profile court cases - I'm not on the jury. Or in this case: the experts do not report to me. I'm not receiving all the briefings by the top medics and researchers so I don't feel like it should be down to me to decide things. Of course I want my doctor to explain things to me and keep me involved in my care decisions, but also I want her/him to understand when the topics are too complicated and too specialist for me to make any kind of informed decision about. In those circumstances I want my doctor, with my best interests at heart, to tell me what I should do. In pandemic terms, this means I want the medics and researchers to advise the government, and for the government, with the nation's best interests at heart, to assess the information and advise/regulate accordingly. The problem is here that most of us can't trust the government to have anything but their own and their mates' interests at their ice-cold hearts and so we're forced to try inexpertly to assess the information ourselves, and we just can't. I'm a linguist amd a pedagogue, I'm not a medic. I need the experts and the people in charge to be acting together and in good faith. And I get ridiculed for saying I need the experts to do this. Since when was it smart to pretend to understand shit we normally pay other people lots of money to understand because *it's difficult* ?! Please tell me which drugs and which precautions are most advisable and I will concentrate on how to get adults using Akkusativ and Dativ cases in German. I'm sorry, I guess I'm just old. Rantblog over.
i think the reason ridicule you for this is because simply trusting the "experts" is something that we've tried before in the 20th century and it doesn't work out. even if they are working all in good faith, they have their blind spots and will not catch everything. Sure we can have experts making decisions, but it needs to be a transparent process so people in the public can view it and provide criticism and comment. You should never underestimate the power of thousands of people looking at something.
and remember, no matter how good the expert's intentions, at then end of the day you are a number on a spreadsheet to them. they don't know you, they aren't personally attached to you, and they don't know you're circumstances.
You don't need to have a masters in Geology to know when it's raining.
It's so obvious that this scam is entirely to do with introducing digital IDs linked to a social credit score. Hence why so many countries are doing exactly that, even though their own data shows that the vaccine passports have not affected cases or deaths with covid. But their solution? Expand the passports! Get them into every business in existence so you can't exist without one.
Great discussion! I find myself somewhere in the middle too. I'm a student healthcare professional and obviously pro-vax, but I'm not ultra militant and don't necessarily support imposing lockdowns if someone sneezes 100 miles away. However, I see a lot of my peers, qualified peers and potential future employers on social media taking the radial line, and thus sometimes I feel I'm not being "healthcare" enough. I obviously care strongly about saving people's lives but it's not a black and white issue and we don't have the evidence to decide which shade of grey it is.
Try to look less at groups and more at your systems of analysis. Analyzing the group is a form of potential cognitive bias. Working through the available evidence using the tools you learned as a healthcare student will be more reliable. What do you know about the data? Which options for public policy have data that implies what outcomes?
You can leave the philosophy of which tradeoffs are worthwhile until after you have a good idea of what the trade offs even are.
I dont like HC workers being used as political pawns.
There are deeper philosophical-political questions that arise that are important to address.
To what extent are we turning our healtchcare systems from systems of health into systems of government? Ie turning society into a something like a giant hospital. What protections against this are in place?
To what extent are we parasitising (and thereby discrediting) the authority of doctors to create social control?
To what extent is this curtailing freedoms both in the short and long term justifiable -since it is often thought of as worth it to suspend freedom temporarily to acheive greater freedom in the future but not worth it if the suspension of freedom leads to less freedom.
Are we sacrificing something fundamental about being human by lockdowns over something notably mild like omicron?
To what extent are we moving from a society of individual choice to one of collective imposition on the individuals life?
These are all important questions that need to be properly discussed if we are to live with each other with minimal tensions since everyone has different values and answers to these questions
Of course your pro vax, your one of their robots, do the studies on vaccinations for the last 30 years it's called research something your generation knows nothing about.
I and my family, including extended family, are not vaccinated and we are in the US. When Covid appeared our government went into overdrive (which it should) but they made a huge strategic mistake. They exempted Congress, the White House (staffs included), the CDC and their parent department from the requirement to take the vax. Then they relieved the pharmaceutical companies from liability, changed the trial periods for testing and even changed definitions used to set ethical standards for testing. Finally after all that they used a corrupt reporting method that made Covid seem far worse than it really is. Unfortunately in the US our politicians are bought by the various lobbies and are beholding to them for election funding. Trust in our government has never been lower and for apparent good reason. Time will tell whether or not vaccinating was the best choice for us but the real truth will not become apparent for decades. Much like we are now learning of government using soldiers and prisoners for testing without their knowledge decades ago.
+mikeb2777
*"Time will tell whether or not vaccinating was the best choice for us but the real truth will not become apparent for decades. "*
The ignorance of you anti-vaxxers is just appalling. You really believe that vaccines are going to cause some mysterious "long term side effect" 20 years from now? What is that even based on? Do you have some knowledge of immunology and cell biology that surpasses the 99% of actual scientists who would disagree with you?
@@jackjohnson4386 There are now plenty of YT videos by medical professionals and scientists discussing the side effects of the vaccines and increased death rates. Perhaps you have not seen these or choose to believe you made the best choice in getting a vaccine and wish to ignore counter arguments. There are a lot of great vaccines but this was not one of them.
@@mikeb2777 yes. there is no excuse for a jackjohson level of angry ignorance in 2023.
I would find it much easier to accept the variety of views if AHPRA (the medical governing body in Australia) had not told doctors, nurses, dentists - any health care professional - that if they said anything against the vaccine rollout they would lose their licence. How can I have an honest conversation with my doctor about MY health and the risk v benefits of the vaccine if they can only give me one response? You seem very rational, but it is difficult in Australia to have a rational conversation regarding anything to do with Covid or vaccines.
As far as the AHPRA (or other bodies) suspending medical licenses, my understanding is that it isn't a blanket ban on discussing risks and benefits; it's about reminding practitioners that they have a responsibility to provide evidence based care. The position letter I read stated that it was important to discuss risks and benefits with patients, and that they seek to address individuals who are relying on personal beliefs and biases, and who are actively providing advice and treatment that is contrary to such evidence.
In short, if you actively discourage someone from getting a vaccine or approved treatment, you need to be able to defend your position based on solid evidence.
Personally I like it when a practitioner admits they don't feel there is enough evidence on a subject, but hopefully they also recognize the difference between a lack of evidence existing vs their own lack of knowledge on a subject.
And if your personal beliefs go against public policy, then that's usually a sign that you need to seek the truth in the evidence (and, like any proper scientist, be prepared to be wrong) and seek to change public policy. To take a personal view that's based on bad science and cry foul when you use that as a basis for your practice and get called out on it? Not cool.
I understand your burnout with the COVID subject. However, this is my opportunity (if you are reading this) to make a request for some content: allergies and over-the-top reactions by the bodies of many people to either benign or unimportant foreign substances. For several decades (after having a brittle asthmatic child) I have thought this would be a high value subject.
Of course, I don't expect you to make a breakthrough, but a lot of us would like to know more about quieting the pointless storms. Thank you for reading this... if indeed you do. Thank you for being here in any case.
This is very very good
Hey Chris didn’t expect to see you here. We have a few mutual friends, and I’ve watched/listened to much of your stuff, 2021 was quite a year for you! Thanks for dropping by
As someone in the medical field that is tired of both antivaxxers and the yay-science crowd, you didn't piss me off. Very balanced and nuanced discussion here, thanks!
I am not in the medical field but I have decided to just get the vaccine and stop worrying about anti-vaxxers because they can't be bothered to worry about themselves by getting a vaccine.
@@notreallyhere67 Yeah. The thing is, they act as a better vessel for the virus to mutate and eventually become more dangerous. And also spread more, even to the vaccinated. What a boring dystopia.
@@possamei you know, I tried to tell people that, even looked up articles where actual virologists said the same thing, I tried metaphors, and none of it worked on them. They just kept asking for more sources and studies and at that point I gave up. If they can't be bothered then I won't be either...
@@possamei If the vaccine worked as initially advertised, you wouldn't be so afraid of the unvaxxed. The truth is that while the vaccines can help reduce spread, they are leaky, and even vaccinated people can spread the virus. But rather than acknowledge this reality, a new underclass of "unclean" people have been created and demonized.
@@chrimony Cuba is right over there, commie.
The video is much appreciated. Weaponized science is hugely dangerous, regardless of the ideology. A calm, rational voice is always appreciated.
I wouldn't say “weaponized science is hugely dangerous” (unless we're talking nuclear weapons research or killer drones etc.). Actual scientific information can't really be weaponized - the whole point of science is that you can, and should, change your opinion/standpoint when the evidence points that way. There shouldn't be anything cultural/religious about science.
The real, and severe, problem is when people claim to base their political opinion on science, but fail to recognize that the evidence does not in fact support their point. Weaponized cherry-picked-science-chunks.
@@leftaroundabout oh but it can, and is, see: 5th gen warf air...
@@leftaroundabout Pretty easy actually - you determine the acceptable outcome before you run the experiment and then hide anything that doesn't fit or can't be twisted to fit. That's how a lot of science is being done these days, wherever there's an intersection with politics. There are loads of fields where there's only ever one right answer and if you ever do anything to call that into question you are excommunicated. There's no healthy debate. There are red lines everywhere you cannot even begin to question.
@@bubba99009 nobody is “excommunicated” in science for publishing results that disagree with political points, as long as you don't take unwarranted conclusions. There are all the time papers that, for instance, demonstrate that climate change has no impact on XYZ.
What you refer to with “hide anything that doesn't fit” - well, sadly something like this does happen, but then it's just _not science._ The scientific method specifically says you form a hypothesis, which must be falsifiable by experiment, and then you design the experiment so that it will almost guaranteed fail in case the hypothesis was wrong (even when taking statistical inaccuracies into account), and only if it doesn't fail you publish.
Indeed that leaves a problem there, namely that “almost guaranteed fail” means if you repeat the experiment often enough, every once in a while it'll succeed by fluke, a false positive. One solution would be to require so strong p-values that it would be absurdly expensive to repeat the experiment sufficiently often. That's what's typically done in physics, but unfortunately not really feasible in most other disciplines. Short of that, what's needed is to ensure is that negative results are still published, because then survey studies can detect the fluke positives for what they are.
xkcd.com/882/
@@bubba99009 This, * 100. Funding is only given to people looking for the answers the fund source wants and is willing to publish. If that requires logical leaps or just straight up lying they will. And do.
Hi, thanks for your video, it was really amazing to hear a nuanced perspective on this issue. I'm fully vaccinated and boostered but I am a skeptic, not of the science behind vaccines, but in the institutions and corporations that produce and sell them and this side of vaccine skepticism is rarely covered in a balanced way. It seems incredibly strange that while there is widespread distrust of global tech, energy, food, finance corporations etc, and a general and proven acceptance that there have been well documented campaigns by such corporations and governments on a global scale to mislead or abuse the public on topics such as climate change, the Iraq war and wikileaks Iraq war papers, Panama papers, 2008 financial crash, the facebook/Cambridge analytica political advertising etc, there is little recognition that this abuse of public trust will carry over into the pharmaceutical industry. In fact the most obvious example of this abuse is the American healthcare system and the cost of drugs and treatments. We have to ask ourselves why anyone who doesn't have time to sit and do research would have anything other than mistrust in multi-billion global pharmaceutical companies.
Yes. I share pretty similar views on this. There is well-documented evidence that pharmaceutical companies are just that, corporations that work to produce profit at any human or logistical cost... and that means all kinds of scandalous stuff going on. The science side is solid as long as it serves the corp's profit-driven interests. Which is chilling.
Same here. Im medically trained, work in associated field, believe in pretty much everything Rohin says here, but firmly believe that political corruption of our institutions is responsible for nearly all the breakdown in the systems. The central evil of this peversion is cancel culture, the erosion of our liberal values that allowed everyone to speak more or less fearlessly and frankly. But having allowed cancellation, the purity tests of speakers, the concept of "platforms", collective guilt and the wholesale collapse of unbiased journalism we are now at the mercy of a whole slew of gatekeepers and narrative controllers.
Accepting this destruction of our liberal heritage has cost us an enormous amount and it's far from over.
Especially when the jab mfgr has a long list of criminal history, AND got caught trying to c0 ver up adve rse eff3ct during trial:
ua-cam.com/video/L2GKPYzL_JQ/v-deo.html
AND, when FDA wants to wait 75yrs before letting the jab trial data becomes public:
ua-cam.com/video/utUKZWUEUwE/v-deo.html
Umm yeah.. big pharma has lots to gain in abusing public trust.. and all the signs are there. The $50billion revenue from jabs in 2021 wasnt too shabby either.
@@djanitatiana ...I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. The reason that corporations and governements get away with doing shitty stuff is because of...cancel culture?
@@legrandliseurtri7495 Without free speech, you can't have free science and free people, or it would be much more difficult, then with free speech.
Free speech dosn't mean though you can lie wilfully without consequences, but you should be able to voice your concerns as your opinion.
Thank you so much for making this! I know a few people "on the fence" who I think it will resonate with. One point that I feel is worth bringing up is how so much of the fatigue, even for people not working in medicine, comes from the onus being on individuals to navigate complex, uncertain questions, knowing that they're going to be shamed by one contingent or the other no matter what.
I also wanted to mention that the demonizing of anyone who is not vocally supportive of the vaccines in all contexts as an "anti-vaxxer" has the effect of pushing the skeptical, hesitant, scared, or confused people into identifying with the anti-vaxxer movement (which, arguably, has happened with most extremist labels that get tossed around at the slightest provocation because they're known to be powerful shaming devices). I've had conversations where the other person had no sense of what the real anti-vax movement was and why it was so harmful and false, they just assumed "anti-vaxxer" was an insult geared toward anyone with reservations about any vaccines. Whenever people are actively alienated and shut down by those privileged with science education (including self-education) and research capabilities, you can bet the conspiracy/fringe circles are ready to welcome them with open arms.
Major, major props to you, Rohin, for retaining a sense of compassion and level-headedness despite your exhaustion. Hang in there. Best wishes for 2022. :)
People that try to pretend like the covid vaccine is the only vaccine in existence aren't worth anyone's time
They deserve to be shamed for their stupidity
@@dutchdykefinger Sorry bud, but that sort of attitude is part of the problem. Did you even watch the fucking video at all?
@@dutchdykefinger this has nothing to do with anything I said...?
They're called "thought terminating cliches", they create an emotional response based on a false dichotomy, and lock both sides in an irresoluble argument. They're created to silence other points of view. They're the preferred tool of a democratic tyranny. Examples: racist, fascist, anti-vaxxer, transphobe, fatphobe, etc
As a scientist myself, i honestly believe that if we would have had more honest, down to earth, non-judgmental and medically accurate conversations like these since the beginning, this whole mess would have had a significantly different outcome. Thanks for posting this, Rohin.
Really like your name!
@@sonicgauge1 thanks! I'm a biotechnologist and a musician, so i felt it kinda suits me 😊
@@Stereochemistry rite on im a musician too and an audiophile hence "sonicgauge" lol, I think yours is cooler though. Cheers!
Yes. Holy shit the number of people going out and speaking objective nonsense in the hopes of duping the public into behaving properly is staggering and has been literally from day 1. It's insulting and just trains people to ignore everything scientists say, because all of the most public-facing ones have demonstrably lied repeatedly.
I'm vaccinated, I support the vaccine (though big pharma is definitely using it to turn a quick profit off the suffering of the masses and it's probably a little less safe than the people who make it claim), I want this to end, and the lies only prolonged it and gave ammunition to the crowd that's doing the most damage. It's so disappointing, I thought we were above this.
@@Teth47 i hoped that we were above this, too. But at the same time i knew that we were not. :/ and I'm generally an optimist!
I think I saw your first video right when it was uploaded and loved it. And your videos continue to amaze me.
This video is so important. I have stopped reading or watching anything related to vaccines on social media about a year ago, because I realized that if I kept reading I would not make a sound decision regarding the vaccine. I would not be vaccinated today had I kept reading these posts. My bubble was so extremely pro-vaccine and got angry at anybody that dated to voice doubts that I found myself arguing all the time for a more open discussion and more tolerance. I tried to bring evidence that showed that some of the doubts were plausible and thus reached a point where I was biased towards articles discussing potential risks. The only way to return to a more balanced view which finally led to getting my three shots was ignoring these topics on social media.
Videos like this can reach people that have never been anti-vaccine, but were alienated in the last couple of months!
The videos like the vitamin/old English journal, are incredibly underrated. In all honesty they are some of my favorite videos on UA-cam
I don't agree with everything in this video, but it definitely didn't piss me off. In fact, I'm happy to see that you are talking about the data as you see it. I think some other more qualified doctors, particularly, Robert Malone (creator of mRNA technology) and Peter McCullough (cardio specialist) have spoken more so on the data and what it has been involved in the collection of the data. It's no longer as simple as "This is the data we have". It's never really been that simple, statisticians can weigh in on just how easy it is to ruin a dataset. But recently, interest groups have really pushed this to a new level and just for example from this video, you said that in lower age groups the myocarditis was seen more prominently. While there are some theorized mechanisms to back this, it's also been theorized that the effect is more general across the age ranges and it's just harder to tease out of older populations where myocarditis is already an issue. But we have seen where hospitals have been incentivized to relate any patient to COVID which thoroughly dilutes the dataset we have. In just the two doctors I mentioned, one specifically said they trust Israeli data, and the other said they don't trust it. The data itself has been heavily called into question.
In your lengthy interview with David Nutt, he often wanted to relate to current events (aka, COVID and vaccines) and you kept calling him back to the topic you chose. It felt, to me, like you were avoiding the conversation of COVID. I can see now maybe you were honestly just trying to have a hyper focused video that already was extremely long, and you wanted the psychedelic's censorship to be the only point in the argument. I would have still liked to hear his points on the topic because he is acutely aware of the censorship in medicine, and again, when it comes to this data, we have seen things explicitly wiped from data or explicitly added to the data and it all clearly leans in favor of large pharmaceutical interests.
Again, I don't agree with all your points in this video and I think some of them may be under-informed or under-researched, but it is nice to see that you have not taken the staunch approach that is so common today. I'm glad that you are able to look at the data with a little less bias than others and recognize that it's not the "safest vaccine in history" as some have tried to push. There are issues, and to your point, hiding this issues really does lead to more vaccination hesitancy. My children and I have all vaccines up to this one and until now I was pretty harsh on people who refused them. Now, I can't be so harsh. It's awful, because previous vaccines have had much more time to be tested, and have proven to be much more effective. As for the common example, the Polio Vaccine, no one is getting break through polio, and the argument isn't that the polio vaccine keeps you out of the hospital or reduces your hospital stay, or only some people with the vaccine end up in an iron lung. It's get vaccinated against polio, you don't get polio. To me it was a clear decision and there was little indication of financial interests muddying the data. Now, when vaccines come out, I can't feel the same because for this one, it's been so clear that people are all too willing to lie. Or... at the very least, speak without immediate knowledge.
Thank you for being a reasonable voice in all of this, it's so hard to avoid psychopaths on the Internet sometimes
I'm just some biology dork (I've no accolades, I just always loved Biology) and I stopped discussing Covid in early 2021 because no one could just *discuss* it.
Anything I said or typed contained shifting subtext that changed depending upon who heard/read it. No matter what I said, they saw whatever they wanted to see.
This total tribalism, for me, has been one of the worst consequences of Pandemic.
It was bad before and now it feels unmanageable.
I hate to admit I'd probably be one of those people. But I dunno... at the same time I'm a little more open to things than I was before. Best thing is to look at opposing arguments and then decide what you think is most accurate. There's a tribalism about literally everything today.
Just re read your last sentence... the tribalism existed before covid its just more obvious to everyone now. Ive seen it escalating for the past few years before covid.
I know what you mean. It's almost impossible to have a nuanced conversation about the subject without assumptions being made. I would like to be properly informed and I've only managed to find a couple of videos covering the type of biological info that I'm looking for regarding auto immune issues. Even now I believe that we're only just scratching the surface of what Covid is about and under what conditions the vaccines are of benefit. I've got a feeling that we'll hear more hard science about auto- immunity as time goes on but it's subject to getting reliable information.
I have noticed the very same problem. I'm working in healthcare and I have studied vaccines in Uni at 2019. I could discuss about this subject with my former classmates but if I mention any of it to outside world, I get shut down as antivaxxer. I'm not antivaxxer and I don't want to kill my patients but I'm critical of this vaccines's processing and how it was handled by the politicians.
I have had the same experience. It has been impossible to talk about this without running into political territory I did not intend approaching. Things got weird really fast.
this is what I like .. A medical professional trying to explain nuance that I don't have the background to understand :) thank you and happy new year to you as well
You've put a lot of concerns I've had into words, and while I should really suppress my desire to appeal to authority, I cannot thank you enough for bringing some clarity to my worries.
The beard is back!!! Seriously, thanks for this measured analysis. Always looking forward to your videos, whether it's scripted and silly, or spur of the moment and sincere
A cardiologist presented☝️ to youtube with a video w/o any sarscov2 content. This is what happened to his vivews/like-dislike ratio.
RF, a cardiologist, ☝presenting to UA-cam *
😉
Oh man, we really need another Medlife parody of Chubbyemu. That one was epic.
The data seems to show that the vaccines barely stops spreading, I think thats one of the main reason a lot of people didnt get vaccinated since they thought it didnt matter if they personaly got vaccinated or not
Right in the I am going to sleep now timing, nice.
So much pain and suffering is waiting for you down the road on the other end of this habit. Consider adding it to your 'watch later' list instead.
1:05 in the morning here ;D
Once again, your nuanced and careful discussion is brilliant and I appreciate it. So much of it is so hard to find a definitive answer, outside of the waffling medical journal scouring journalists (and occasionally self-serving researchers).
I’m confused why he didn’t mention natural immunity though.
First time I've ever watched your videos and I appreciate the nuanced and calm discussion on such a controversial topic. This is the sort of discussions that should be happening in the public sphere and we wouldn't be dealing with the political issues at present.
Thanks for the hard work.
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to the conversation. I've commented previously about the Science Studies literature, and been impressed by your willingness to consider other viewpoints. I too am concerned that the over-zealous promotion of the current public health initiative because I believe it undermines trust in the long term. We humans seem to find it very hard to deal with nuance. We're also bad at statistics, but that's another issue. ;)
Much love from an American ICU nurse. Your content has been a calming and/or uplifting resource for me when I've been at my most bitter the last two years. Thanks for reminding me that we all suck at least a little bit and should try to understand instead of throw stuff.
You most certainly have NOT pissed me off Dr Medlife! Work as HCA in inpatient mental healthcare in Scotland myself but am at a point in my career when I'm hoping to diversify my career by becoming a vaccinator on the side and this video has certainly given me some thinking points. I am a very keen believer in vaccines but I have found through my career that being as transparent as possible with patients, even if it involves admitting to nuance and uncertainty, however scary that may seem, seems do engender trust and confidence in the long run. So, thank you for this and thank you for giving me some thinking points/themes about what I hope to do doing soon.
A rare nuanced perspective on the internet about a polarizing topic, would you look at that he really did it!
Is there much solid evidence on the efficacy of differing messaging strategies? Are there studies comparing, for instance, different vaccination campaigns/policies in different countries, and seeing what the vaccination rates are?
You seem quite critical of the UK & US governments' messaging on vaccines (which I think is right, their messaging has been awful), but I would like to see some solid evidence on *why* it was bad, and what a more effective strategy would be.
Yeah, I'm also interested in that, but I think a difficulty there is to assume any campaign happens in isolation. There's something to be said about the potentially slower to build culture around discussion of science, politics and public health. So an approach can be better in a short stint under certain conditions but help worsen the situation in the long run, and I'm not sure how you'd design research to look into that currently - probably would have to go to the side of history and such.
That being said, in the lack of good evidence, it seems to me like a decent common sense assumption is that if you don't treat people with respect and distort information, you will probably not be breeding trust or cooperation.
Yea.. Lets spend even more money on creating propaganda.. Briliant
Not directly from the government but first thing that comes to my mind was when the UK allowed free taxi rides and pizza slices to people who got the vaccine. It's not a very convincing bribe and I doubt the government actively asked companies and restaurants to do this but I've seen comments on UA-cam channels from news channels promoting it, saying the UK really put out a bad image of vaccines at that moment.
@@damianpos8832 The fact you think that public health messaging is propaganda is exactly the point the original poster made.
In a perfect world the messaging would be evidence-based and ideally non-judemental. However the politicising of complex non-binary issues has seemed to set people into two camps: us vs. Them.
I think the same thing happened with Brexit. Putting on my foil hat, I'd say it was intentionally done that way, have the public froth at each other while the timer ticks down.
One problem is trust in government in general. Here in the Nordic countries, trust in government is generally high, and so is vaccine acceptance ratio (the people who haven't taken the vaccine yet here aren't generally, except for a very small and very vocal minority, against taking it in principle - there's just a surprisingly high number of people who have real reasons; a paralyzing fear of jabs being one of them, and in addition to that, feeling ashamed of not having been able to overcome that fear yet...)
I'm actually feel better that you can be honest about what you know. And I also appreciate your reminder that we need to carefully weigh risks and benefits, based on the available credible information.
Love the shirt!
I appreciate your approach, and have decried the false dichotomies I've seen crop up in other discussions. One thing I've noticed is that false dichotomies are an effective manipulation strategy for getting people to accept an idea or action they would otherwise find reprehensible or generally distasteful. Present something like pickle juice ice cream as an either-or choice against, I dunno, the end of civilization, and suddenly, anyone who accepts this framing will line up for pickle juice ice cream. The best treatment for this mentality is a glass of perspective with a little grated nuance on top.
Did you notice the false dichotomy in this video? Specifically the one where medical communicators must be doing a bad job communicating, or the people listening are big dumb dumb wackos. Does it really have to be bad communication, or dumb listeners?
If not, why employ that specific tactic near the early part of the video? Who is he speaking to and why would that framing be useful? Perhaps people who are vaccine hesitant will pick the "bad communication" option and then feel better about this video because it has a better communicator!
I have lot of questions, concerns and growing distrust that I don't think will ever be put to ease. But this was refreshing and helpful at least. Thank you
As a cardio expert.. What about long-term consequences of "mild and self limiting' myocarditis?
Good to know there are still people on the internet that I can relate to. Very much in the "vaccinations are good" camp, but it's very concerning that any concerns raised about this one are quickly swept under the rug. That's not how open science or medicine should work!
Great video, very reassuring to hear your opinion on myocarditis risk, and injection process.
In my experience the 2 main reasons for the prevalence of vaccine scepticism, are:
1) The complete disregard of natural immunity, or even a discussion about it.
2) The continuous shifting of the goal-posts regarding vaccines and vaccine-acquired immunity, and with it the dubious reporting about it in the media.
In short, how the mainstream media in almost every country is handling the discussion and reporting about vaccines, is causing most of the resistance against covid vaccination.
Also, a lot of condescending messaging about how the vaccines are "safe". They're not simply "safe", there are some small risks. But I think those risks are less than the risks of COVID. I think people would trust the messaging more if it were honest about that.
Natural immunity, along with isolation, were the only defenses against the Spanish Flu. Isolation was easier with a 1/4 of the current population. 1% of the Earths people died.
So, today we have 8 billion - which would be 80 MILLION people DEAD.
Deaths are currently at 5.4 million - which do you prefer????? Get vaccinated, get boosted..
True, but I would add
3) Governments everywhere mishandling both their Covid response and their communication about it, at best,
or in the worst cases, using the crisis to grab more power and the Covid measures as a way of social control.
Thus increasing mistrust in both politics and Covid measures including vaccines.
@@ptrsrrll Except Covid letality rate even before / without vaccines is 20 times lower than that of the Spanish flu (not to mention we're not in the middle of WWI, which didn't help with isolation)
While I agree to an extent,
1) natural immunity and it’s effectiveness and duration takes a very long time to study and reach scientific conclusions. We can speculate, but the seeming silence has typically been due to the lack of conclusions we can make just yet. On top of that, a quick risk/reward in the messy data pool of who even 100% knows they had a prior infection leads to a fairly simple policy of “well you’re better off vaccinated regardless.” I hope we get the nuanced answers soon, but this desire to “get to the bottom of natural immunity” has a low reward comparatively to the risk of making assumptions in the mean time just to make people feel heard.
2) what you are reducing to the concept of “moving goalposts” is much more nuanced and would in good faith account much more for the fact that we have a mutating virus. 95% efficacy at the start was great, a plethora of evidence of declining but still significant protection need not be reason to call off the vaccines. “Moving goalposts” here would much more accurately be described as a dynamically changing environment- and it’s entirely reasonable (actually, entirely necessary and responsible) to react to data, recalculate the risks and rewards, and potentially land on the conclusion that we’re still at a point where a huge majority of the population still benefits from getting vaccinated and eventually boosted.
Blame mainstream media and alternative media for completely botching the facts and the messaging, but turning all this nuance into quick digestible info for the masses is a near impossible task.
You may make only a few covid-related videos, but they are very potent and responsible. I think the virus is just another chaotic situation that increases a divide in our communities, and that's the far greater problem imo. While misinformation is worrisome, I'm trying hard not to demonize or infantilize people who believe different, perhaps irrational, things. It's fair to believe we're all trying our best with whatever information we currently have.
(also, thank you for continuing to stick it out. Even if we're all expressing frustrations and exasperation at how long this has been going: doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical workers, and all manners of healthcare providers have been feeling the weight most. Sure maybe a few CEOs and board directors made millions, but 99.99% of those in the field are not seeing any payback for work that, respectfully, resembles warfare.)
Another great one by you, colleague! And exactly my thoughts - I am trying to make COVID-19 videos and being as unbiased as possible and not to hurt anyone's feelings! Damn, it's hard! Happy New Year!
Don’t worry about hurting feelings. Just tell the truth.
One important thing to point out about masks are that even if it were proven that they have no effect on covid transmission they would still bring down instances of other transmissive diseases and therefore the load on the worlds health services; making them more able to focus on covid.
Never thought of that before. Good point
They already have-masks made the flu spread a lot less in 2020 than it has been historically.
Following that line of taught you might as well say “let’s forbid driving so that we bring down instances of car crash injuries and therefore the load on the health services” you could potentially forbid any part of life that could bring injuries till we are all tied to a bed with a machine feeding us. TO SURVIVE and TO LIVE are two different things
@@Luca-xh7ng yeah but cases of car crashes don't rise exponentially, eventually making them a huge problem for the health services. That's something we need to consider.
@Luca: Please do not forget that the risk/benefit ratio between wearing masks and driving a car is markedly different. Not being able to drive a car will come at considerably higher individual cost than wearing a mask. The „risk“ of wearing a mask is 0. If you say that wearing a mask makes life not worth living, you are definitely neither a health professional nor a Mexican wrestler.
You didn’t piss me off with this video (it’s the first of yours I’ve listened to).
Thank you for the considered and reasonable exploration and especially for acknowledging limitations in the current science and in your own knowledge.
This was a really EXCELLENT video, and a very sober analysis of what's happening. Thank you for this.
No, you haven't pissed everyone off. This is what the message from the authorities should have been all the way through the past couple of years!
There is no medicine without possible rare serious side effects... and playing that down is never a good idea... if the cost benefit analysis is good people will be on board... downplaying the possible harm, even if rare and strongly out-weight by the benefits, people will grow wary and suspicious. Most people don't like knowing they are being manipulated and lied to regardless of the motive and the truth will always out.
Most people I know don't want to know possible harm... they actively ignore possible side effects of drugs they need to have as painkillers or birth control pills.
@@caioporto9234 but, then they won't be keeping an eye out for the side effects? Isn't that directly counterproductive? Like, high blood pressure is a possible side effect of venlafaxine, so I check my blood pressure far more frequently than I otherwise would have. Because I am in a risk group for it because of my medication so keeping an eye on it helps reduce future risks. You can't do risk management if you pretend they don't exist :(
@@Call-me-Al Yep. Sure. Yep, unfortunately. I'm not saying that's good or advocating it. I'm saying that's how it goes here for most people I know (the vast majority went to college and have an income far above the national average, so it's not a function of lack of information).
@@caioporto9234 But, there is a difference between choosing not to know and knowing that you are being mislead... that the information is being kept from you... isn't there?...
@@sgjoni Sure, there is. But is information being kept from people? I mean, is it not available for those who want it? I'm really asking because I usually read science journalism and different countries are having completely different experiences (I'm from Brazil and trust me it's been a nightmare here. At the same time newspapers and the like have been pretty good and there is a huge front of scientists helping to spread realiable information).
In my opinion the nuances should not be discussed with the general population on national television, but privately with doctors. And that the general message should be strong and reassuring. Is that misleading? Sure. Have we been doing that for a long time? Hell yeah. Has it worked before? Up until, the antiv movement it has. Is it going to continue working? I still think that when properly done it is the best way (here in my neck of the woods at least).
Rare these days to see such a balanced and educational video. I hope it helps people make more informed decisions!
thank you for this! Being married to a "vaccine sceptic" i can say that a large amount of his hesitancy is due to a lack of public discourse that occupies the middle ground. what has felt like a die hard push for vaccines, a lack of admission that they may be unsuitable for some people, and a lack of research and discourse around finding early treatments is ultimately what put him off. I honestly feel that general communication on the vaccines has been very poor - mainly due to instant shutdown of any questions or worries as 'anit-vax' or 'conspiracy'. rather than call people stupid, why not address their concerns clearly?
You are just saying that our news services gave up proper investigative journalism years ago and just pander to the tribal beliefs of their followers. I agree.
I still remember the fake videos of Chinese people dropping in the streets from some mystery illness which started the Covid ball rolling. The Covid narrative has made me doubt regular vaccines. Was it worth destroying society to give 82 year olds a few extra weeks to live?
@@shornsheep3118 Makes me think most the videos from there are fake and are just propaganda.
Because then they would have to have an open debate and let the other experts speak, and in no time their entire narrative would fall apart... You can't really rely on damage control at that point.
How exactly would you suggest that you address someone that, let's say believes all the statistics are utterly meaningless and purposely faked to make covid-19 look more serious than it actually is? Because this what many of their concerns are similar to. There is absolutely nothing you can tell someone in this position that will not simply make them pull even further back. I'm very curious to hear what your specific response would be to someone like this, because they make up a large portion of the remaining unvaccinated individuals overall.
This is probably the first honest and intelligent take on covid I've heard from a medical professional. Simply admitting you don't know something goes much further to building trust than lying or manipulating the facts.
Thank you for your thoughtful video. Yes, there doesn't seem to be any room for discussion. I stupidly thought that I needed information and discussion to make an informed decision. But I am beginning to realise no one else thinks so. It's either do it this way or go away, no discussion. I have given up talking about it now.
This video was like a breath of fresh air. People are too polarized today, and this seemed perfectly balanced.
I'd love to see an update to this video with the latest information...
I agree: as it happens he is substantively wrong even on assesssment of vaccine efficacy and safety: if he can’t do the medical bit right, how is he going to take in the broader context?
Nice to see something balanced on the topic.
The only thing I would add is that choosing your battles is easier said than done! (Eg people waiting to get married last year would have felt pretty hard done by as sports and hospitality were opened up again. ) It’s hard for us all to agree about the risk/benefit judgements on these cases but some group is always going to feel like they’re the only one making all the sacrifices and I don’t know how you soften that feeling for those who feel overlooked.
Definitely didn't piss off everyone: it's incredibly reassuring to have someone acknowledge my concerns, even if half of them are from one "side" and the rest the other. It truly bothers me when science becomes politicised, because it undermines the very purpose of the pursuit of truth. Your interview with Dr. Nutt may not have been about the same topic directly, but very many points he expressed felt eerily familiar these days.
I've been a staunch supporter of the vaccine my entire life, but the sheer volume of coercion and malice directed at people expressing even slight hesitation definitely made me wait a while before getting it. (I eventually did get both shots)
A question:
Why does seeing malice directed at people for specific opinions, on it's own, lend credence to the correctness of the opinions of those being demonized? Does it actually imply that? If so, how, and if not, why did it feel that way?
@@Pensnmusic Because those people weren't the crazies. They were genuinely concerned for their own health about whether the vaccine was right for them, for very legitimate reasons. Granted, that doesn't actually lend their concerns direct credence, but if someone is offering you a drink in a bar and you're even slightly concerned about it, and they respond by screaming at you to drink it, chances are you're not going to.
I'm a STEM student and I found it very difficult to get helpful information about the development of the vaccine that wasn't ideologically tainted. I was concerned that a medical treatment passed trials in less than a year, but I couldn't get a clear and rational answer about that. I thought I'd better wait and see, then various governments started rather explicitly scapegoating, if not criminalising, people that *chose* not to receive a medical treatment (the right to refuse treatment is, to my knowledge, a cornerstone of modern medicine). I was just pretty spooked and waited for a couple months.
People are emotional creatures. I didn't think there was some nefarious plot to poison the population, but I definitely felt a growing mistrust.
I do believe people should get vaccinated, but I also believe their choice on the matter should be respected. Hopefully that ramble gets across something of what I felt.
@@Aetherian1 wish everyone could be this articulated, objective and fair. World would be a better place. However ironically it takes a lot of learning; both academic and wisdom gained from life experience, to realise how little we really know!
@@Aetherian1
Anyone care to address how the percentage of the population needing to be vaccinated (for efficacy/public safety/herd immunity/whatever) has steadily increased from (around) 70% to 100%?
Even as "break through" cases are being reported...
@@judyd1 Two factors seem to be at play.
1. Scientists (particularly in medicine) generally don't know exactly how anything will behave until they've been able to observe it for quite some time, and even then there can be a great deal of uncertainty in precisely why it behaves as it does and what factors affect that. A disease spreading through a population that don't all share the same behaviour towards it will confound the model hugely. There's a possibility it was underestimated to begin with.
2. Governments manipulating figures, or pushing scientists to manipulate figures, to justify gradually increasing levels of restrictions on freedom for their populace.
I believe it's fair to say both are quite likely in many countries, in varying ratios.
so much of "scientific" communication essentially treats science like magic and aims to be as flashy as possible, under the guise of "getting the message across" - but the massage that does get across when you do that can be more harmful than being quiet.
I notice this a lot when it comes to the big, flashy communicators of physics, but the same was done with regards to the vaccines and covid in general. Then again, this is not isolated to the sciences either, commentary on far-right politicians, for example, is always hyperbolic, even when the same point could be made on a much more grounded way.
In short, people lie and then act surprised when they're not trusted.
But physics is naturally big and flashy
@@Samuel-wb8uo not always, especially it's progress and research. Everyone wants to make their piece about the whole of existence and, in my experience, in this process they make physics sound like magic a lot of the time.
The nuances, difficulties and uncertainties are gestured at but quickly swept under the rug, as if they were a minor detail, when really they're the most important part of the whole thing.
Yes, I'm starting to loathe this approach. Rather than presenting science as a method which acknowledges uncertainty and then iteratively reduces it. It presents _The Science_ as some ineffable dogma which is handed down to the masses from the elite institutions.
@@iAmTheSquidThing I've been reading a science communication book on AI from the 70's, and it tells me more about science than a lot of popularizers nowadays going on and on about string theory and the possible origins of the cosmos and the new totally about to be proved views on the nature of time and conscience, etc.
The way the book manages to stay relevant even though it's a book on AI from over 40 years ago is by focusing on modeling, decision processes and management of uncertainty.
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p Sounds like what you have a problem with is not the flash, but the lies. I completely agree -- many so-called "physics" communicators don't even understand the physics they're teaching (free tip; don't ever bother with SciShow, it's terrible and will leave you dumber than when you started). But that doesn't mean it's right to castrate a presentation, either. Particularly with physics, we have learned certain things to an astounding degree of certainty that's completely unheard of in softer fields like medicine. It would be a disservice to fail to communicate that confidence.
I always appreciate the way you clearly communicate the sources of what you say. This is info from a peer-reviewed study, this is based on my professional training and experience, this is my personal opinion, etc.
This was actually a wonderfully thought out and respectful piece you should be proud of the video imo.
This is the sort of discussion I have had to have SO MANY TIMES in the last year with various different people. I for one am very pleased you made this video and have already linked it to a bunch of peeps, we need to discuss and try to understand these nuances on a larger social level and this has become increasingly difficult in the face of the anti-expert 'movement'.
With all that to one side though, do you find it at all concerning and/or ironic that the education system which has failed for long enough to allow the general public this staggering level of ignorance and inability to critically analyse data is the same education system now suffering so badly from said ignorance and inability? I cannot help but feel there is some deeply dark humour in there...
Thanks for the excellent video. We definitely need more moderate approach in these debates. Not only was it great to watch but the comment section below this video is actually the first sane discussion on this topic I've ever encountered. I need more of this!
(Also, this kinda made me want to be your patient :))
I realised watching your video that my experience with the vaccine is relatively unusual - I got it while I had long covid, which was making my life very difficult to manage. So unlike most I didn't get it in a preventative sense so much as with a hope it would prove curative. Incredibly, I fell into the percentage of LC sufferers who sees an effect - I went down for 2 weeks after the first dose, but then emerged feeling amazing for the first time in a year. The second dose just made me feel a bit down for a few days. The effect was shockingly clear and so I have no doubts whatsoever about efficacy. Had it got it as a healthy person trying to avoid illness, i'd never have known for sure.
Great comment. I've heard this before and I'm glad to hear it happened for you.
And what about the others for which it didn’t work as promised? Also, feeling sick put you in a situation where trying one of many potential remedies was worth a shot. Interesting that taking the vaccines after infection as been touted as too little too late by all mainstream media. And I’ve NEVER read nor heard of this being recommended by a single medical professional.
@@JeepCherokeeful where did you hear that? I’ve never heard any suggestion that you shouldn’t be vaccinated if you’ve already had covid. I know lots of people who had covid and were still encouraged/ got the vaccine. It wasnt recommended that you get the vaccine while you have covid. As in, currently infected. I think the vibe was that if the OP had had the vaccine prior to being infected their symptoms wouldn’t have been so severe. And that giving someone the vaccine while they are on a respirator wouldn’t be effective.
Maybe I misunderstood you though. I did get incredibly lost in my countries guidelines for exposure, couldn’t make head or tail of what they wanted me to do. 😂
Thanks for a balanced review. It's a breath of fresh air.
I've seen a few medical professionals doing this, but they are still few.
Sadly, this nuance is almost entirely absent from the rest of the population, and drowns out the voices of the reasonable.
Happy New Year! Not pissed off and happy that you've taking the time express your opinions, analysis and observations through all this in a disarmingly humorous way.
What is it about the word NO that confuses the control freaks? Please stop "needling" me.
Thank you so much for making this video! You pretty much capture exactly where I stand on all of the issues you address. Thanks for having the guts to do this.
The ICNARC (UK ICU) data shows that it is overwhelmingly the 'unvaccinated' who end up in intensive care. This is questionable because of the definition of unvaccinated being used which is that vaccination only begins two weeks after being injected. So if the injections are causing hospitalisation within 2 weeks it is attributed to being unvaccinated.
That data is questionable.
This might just be the most important video on youtube right now
Clear, consise, free from political or corprate agenda
Just a good doctor explaining the situation as it is
Thanks Rohin for being a voice of reason in the chorus of insanity.
From a locked-down, stores closed on Sundays, schools closed for 2 more weeks, 10pm-5am curfewed Quebec...
Ah yes, the classic "let's curfew people at night because the coof is nocturnal" science-based approach lol
Feel your pain, in my country they decided to close shops earlier. This of course means that more people have to go shop for food at the same time and propagation is increased but retar-I mean politic don't let that go in the way of their little power trip and eroding public trust.
Risks and benefits.
Here from the 10 of january no sting, no job. I have lost interest in the medical perspective about this pandemic
I am fully vaccinated but was left with a nerve issue in my arm that still persists months after. I'll never know if it was caused by vaccination, but the fact that my doctors refused to report it as an adverse event makes me skeptical that this process is actually going to catch issues with side effects. I still recommend everyone get vaccinated since obviously it's quite rare, but I have less faith in the system now, will not be getting boosters, and I am more open minded towards those who are against vaccination, even if most of them are idiots
The more I talk to people the more I hear of stories of lingering post-vaccination issues, they hardly ever say that it was caused by the vaccine, but they won't stop complaining about them nonetheless. Perhaps you are not as rare as you think.
@Nicky L I live in Canada and I haven't found a way to self report
@@Bayonet1809 Yeah I'm not alone, many stories online, and while I was at the neurologist, I overheard the room next door also complaining about issues right after vaccine