The BBC have run an analysis ‘Unvaccinated’. It is available for eleven months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0019g27/unvaccinated
‘Covid-19 is on the rise again in the UK. After multiple lockdowns and more than 197,000 deaths, experts are warning we’re now entering a fifth wave of the pandemic. So why are around four million adults in the UK still yet to receive a single dose of the vaccine? In this timely, eye-opening investigation Professor Hannah Fry seeks to understand why so many remain unvaccinated against Covid-19.
To fully explore this complex and deeply divisive debate, Hannah brings seven unvaccinated participants together under one roof to unpack long-held opinions, beliefs and fears that have prevented them from getting the vaccine. Together, they meet leading experts, confront the latest science and statistics to emerge in the field, and dissect how misinformation spreads on social media. At the end of the experiment, each contributor is asked if what they have learned has changed their mind, and whether they will now take up the vaccine.‘
If this is the same Professor Hannah Fry as in the Mathematics of Cities at the UCL Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, then it seems to Coco that she brings the regimen of mathematics into disrepute. The study, which is designed to fully explore the complex and deeply divisive debate over whether to submit to vaccination or not, is hardly a scientific study, even by the standards of the least rigorous of the psycho-social , so-called, scientific disciplines. There is no parallel study to explore the opinions, beliefs and fears of those who have submitted to vaccination; no meeting of the vaccinated to discuss the contrary evidence and no question put to each of them whether with their greater knowledge they now understand the issues better and in the light of that would have refused the vaccination.
Whilst the setting, if the headline picture is of the location for the event, is quite pleasant, and certainly appears to be less ‘clinical’ than other centres used for similar, but quite different and putatively malicious, purposes, the description provided above suggests that this is nothing less than an attempt at re-education. It is an entirely one-sided, one-way effort to persuade individuals to change their views.
Coco is disappointed, but not astonished nor surprised by the BBC but disappointed, and astonished at UCL.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, this is not in itself a discussion of the reasons for and against vaccination. As mentioned above, the issues are complex; the science, such as it is, behind the modern vaccines is young; the language used to code biological systems is only partly and inadequately understood. There are many uncertainties. There are also complex social issues around our responses to threats, especially where there is a mixture of real, only perceived, and illusory threats some of which are propagated by those with special interests which are not fully aligned with the interests of the actual or potential patients.
E&OE
Just as it is not recommended to begin to answer a question in an examination before you have read the whole question, it is always a dangerous thing to offer comments on a lecture or discussion before you have listened to it. In Coco’s defence however the comments previously offered were on the abstract presented by the BBC in their introduction to the programme. Coco has now listened, and does not wish to retract what has previously been suggested.
Candidate selection
The first thing to note is that the choice of candidates appears to be by purposeful selection, though the criteria for selection are not disclosed, rather than by random selection from the whole population, or at least a significant part, of the unvaccinated. The lack of disclosure of the criteria and the actual descriptions of the reasons given for inclusion in the study (we shall call it for the sake of clarity that though it must not be forgotten that this is not a study in either the scientific or medical sense of the word) suggest that they have chosen those whose reasons for non-vaccination appear to be more about fear than genuine scientific counter-indications, albeit that one of the seven has reasons with good foundations. In other words, Coco concludes that they have picked the easy targets.
Side effects
There is then a section on side effects. Effectively attempting to debunk any appeal to the presence of side effects on the grounds that there is no [known] connection between the side-effect and the vaccine. Just because we do not know that there is no connection does not mean that there is no connection. They made reference to a one lady who had never known fitting before but who fell into seizures after taking the vaccine. This is a hard case; there is no proof that it was the vaccine, but equally there is no proof that it was not.
[Coco is reminded of a path around a pond. Sometimes when walking past a particular point ripples would spread out across the pond. They were not always seen. It also seemed that they did not appear at any other time. It was known that there was an inlet to the pond near that point, but changes to the flow of water in the duct did not have a similar effect. The cause was put down to frogs hiding under the water as someone passed. Many years later the path required to be levelled. It was discovered that the pipe had developed a hernia at that point. The hernia was soft, but it had not burst. Pressure applied to the hernia sent a pressure wave into the pond and ripples out across it. It was then understood that the soil substructure below was such that pressure applied in a particular place could have compressed the hernia to produce the required pressure wave. Over the years, by the action of water and burrowing creatures, the structures in the soil would have been changed thus the location of the spot on the surface would have been unstable. Previously only correlation had been surmised. Later causation was discovered. We must not be hasty when we reach our conclusions. In order to reject a hypothesis in science you must falsify it. Until one is falsified it is a valid hypothesis.
Take for example the flat earth hypothesis, how can that be falsified? You may think it is straightforward, but it is not for rarely are hypotheses presented in terms which are open to manifold interpretation, that is to say the hypothesis holds only one meaning and is precise in that meaning. The flat earth hypothesis may be easily falsified if you apply your own meanings to the words used in the hypothesis and set up a straw man which having no intrinsic structure will collapse at the first blow. But you are not free to apply your own meaning to the words used. Gauss’s hypothesis for example states that when a vector field (called A) be found the surface integral of A over a closed surface (B) is equal to the volume integral of the divergence of A over the volume (V) enclosed by B. The terms used, which may not be understood by the man on the Clapham omnibus, are precise and fixed in their meaning. It has passed the falsification test so is known as Gauss’s theorem. You will find the necessary proofs by a simple search in any decent library – ask the librarian.
Now Gauss’s theorem is perhaps not so well known, but Boyle’s Law, which states that the volume of a gas at constant temperature varies inversely with the pressure exerted, on it will be familiar, if only by the effect of what it describes, to any one involved in refrigeration, or who has ever let air out of a tyre or directed an ærosol can onto his skin. The volume of the gas rapidly increases at the vent where the pressure is lower. We thus feel the gas flowing out of the tyre or the can. There is a secondary cooling effect, which is not described by Boyle’s law, which is probably the thing that we notice.
Boyle’s law as I have stated it above can be, and has been, falsified. Real gasses do not behave in this way. A further factor, which we call compressibility, must be taken into account. Boyle’s law must be stated in the form: the volume of an ideal gas at constant temperature varies inversely with the pressure exerted.
You see, even on a simple level science is not easy, yet it is very straightforward. When you hear two scientific statements which are seemingly contradictory you do not ask Which one is true?, you ask Which one has been falsified? If neither has been falsified, either could be true.
Rather sadly, as we shall see, the study does not address the scientific counter-indications nor seek to show that any of them have been falsified.
Again let Coco say, Coco is not today here to present or discuss those.]
In summarising the side-effects it is stated that there is a 1 in 30k chance of a bad response, but in this it is not clear whether the bad response is the result of an abnormality in the victim of the bad response (otherwise known as the subject of the vaccination) or whether it is the result of an abnormality in the vaccine itself. This raises the question of what quality controls are there in the production of the vaccines. If the quality controls allow the possibility that there is a 1 in 30k risk of an abnormality in the vaccine then it is certain that 1 in 30k will have a bad response. So, we must ask Is the bad response built into a particular batch or even phial of the vaccine?
[Coco also supposes that a comparison should have been made with the chance of a bad reaction to the virus itself. The safest choice, whether to take the vaccine or not, is likely to be the one with the lowest risk of a bad reaction.]
Speed of development
It was claimed that no short cuts were taken in the development of the vaccine, despite the obviously very short time scale on which the vaccines were developed. More could have been said on this point as much work had been done prior to the need for the vaccine on new techniques for the development of vaccines and the stimulation of our bodies’ immune response systems. This would perhaps however not have supported the overall case the study was trying to make as it would have exposed the novelty of some of the vaccines, our lack of knowledge of their long term effects and other risks associated with the ingredients used.
Instead of this they considered the efficacy of the vaccines by looking at the production of anti-bodies as a result of taking the vaccine and comparing them to the production of anti-bodies as a result of infection.
Commercial interests were acknowledged in that US companies saw this as a bonanza, but AZ agreed it would not take profits on the vaccine until after the pandemic.
Pregnancy issues
The study could not ignore fears over the health of unborn children, but the discussion though specifically focussing on this matter did not take any different approach than it had previously.
There was then a strange interlude in which the Professor reinforces that she has a desire to understand…why was that necessary, unless this is not a study but merely propaganda for a particular point of view?
Trust of government
Concerning the approval of vaccines and direct questions about whether they are fully approved there was obfuscation. No straight answer was given, instead references were made to ongoing changes, in response to variants(?), which of course must be tested, but are they then rolled out before full approval is given. Given the ‘urgency’ of getting the changes out the impression was left that of the vaccines being used, whilst version 1 may be fully approved, the current version, the one actually being administered, is likely to have been approved only under emergency measures. Was this intentional?
Misinformation
False information is of course an impediment to a correct and necessary response, so its presence could not be ignored.
A particular piece had been sent out to schools as if from the NHS, and then resent by them to parents referencing a 1:29000 chance of dying. The context suggested that this was a result of the vaccine, which is of course frightening to those who read it.
[We should note however that as the annual death rate is circa. 1:100 in the UK, unless they were talking about the daily death rate it was too low not too high. We had a death rate of about 0.8% pa pre Covid which is about 1:29k pj. Of course that death rate is across the population as a whole, and certainly not the rate for younger people, the children and the parents of the children at school. ]
There was then, perhaps at the last, a reference to the ‘Golfers live longer’ study but sadly it missed the point. The study clearly showed that correlation and causation must be distinguished, but they did not apply it to the vaccines, but merely used it to dismiss counter-arguments.
An attempt was then made to talk about the impact of misinformation in more general terms, for example in connection with a local war. One participant stopped the conversation on the grounds that war propaganda was not relevant, trying to keep the discussion firmly inside the agreed playing field.
[Coco made the point above that they are not examining the real issues with the vaccine; they seem to be setting up a straw man of opposition in order to discredit it. The Professor seems to be biased. Perhaps the producers know that they have no real answers for those who have genuine objections, and must avoid the real issues.
A reference was made to things that are ‘provably [they meant demonstrably] not true’ but no proof was adduced to support that statement. It was as if the gentleman was saying ‘I am the expert you should believe me’.]
It was claimed that 200k have died of Covid.
[No explanation of this figure was given, nor the period stated in which the deaths had been incurred. It may be the number of excess deaths, but given the way that Covid deaths are counted, that one who has been in contact with Covid in the prior 30 days is treated as a Covid death, may mean that many deaths from other causes may be included in this figure.
We then move on to a hard case, and as the law knows well, good law is not produced by hard cases. ]
The reference was to the Lewisham Hospital’s experience. The impact was quite severe, [but there was no acknowledgement that we did not know how to treat patients at the start, hence the higher death rates in hospitals at that time. As understanding grew the chance of survival for the most severe cases increased.
This last part appeared to be little more than the kind of scaremongering that we have seen for these last two years.
No reference was made in the study to the true impact of the epidemic, nor to the other treatments that are available. It was an all or nothing vaccination approach.
There is nothing new in this analysis. ]
At the end some very nice emotional words are spoken by all of the subjects of the study and by the Professor. The responses of the subjects to the question Will you be vaccinated? were:
There were further emotional appeals, talk about the complex issues and more scaremongering by reference to the risk of another [future] pandemic, which could be worse than the latest.
The conclusion: All in all ‘Shameful’ as one of Coco’s correspondents put it.