Donald Boudreaux pushes junk science on vaccines
Because Hayek would, right?
I have previously discussed Donald Boudreaux’s penchant for encouraging vaccine hesitancy (see here, here, here). This is disgraceful, it kills people.
But he’s at it again. This time he uncritically quotes a Wall Street Journal op-ed by the crank Surgeon General of Florida, Joseph A. Ladapo, arguing that young men should not be vaccinated against COVID. (Boudreaux’s headline states that Ladapo is opposed to boosters for young men, which shows how carefully he read the article before amplifying it; Ladapo is opposed to vaccination.)
Look, there is a concern about myocarditis following mRNA vaccination of young men. We can (and should) try to evaluate that risk and compare it to the risk of getting COVID without being vaccinated or boosted. But that is not what the junk study by Ladapo does. Honest. Boudreaux could look at the study and see. Or he could look at the commentary which is easily available on line.
But that’s not the way Boudreaux rolls. That’s not what his version of classical liberalism is about. He isn’t interested in being a trustworthy information source. He just uncritically amplifies whatever ideologically attractive arguments come over the transom in his libertarian media cocoon. If he likes the conclusion, no need to worry if the information he passes on is accurate. And if some poor souls happen to get killed in the process, well, that’s just the price we pay for liberty.
The myocarditis issue for young men was, at the time it was discovered, almost certainly less of an issue than actually getting Covid-19, but it was still a risk to be considered. Once non-mRNA vaccine became available, that risk factor goes away. Take the other kind of vaccine. Even if the protection was not so effective as the mRNA vaccines, it was far better than none at all, and with no risk of myocarditis. That is old news, and anyone pushing “don’t vaccinate because myocarditis” is telling you they want higher death rates for Covid-19 infections. Somehow no one ever asks them why.
Example # 3,465,781 of why all Libertarians are assholes.
For once, we agree totally.
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/s1019-novavax.html
October 19, 2022
CDC Allows Novavax Monovalent COVID-19 Boosters for Adults Ages 18 and Older
Today, CDC’s Director Rochelle P. Walensky, M.D., M.P.H., signed a decision memo allowing Novavax monovalent COVID-19 boosters for adults.
This action gives people ages 18 years and older the option to receive a Novavax monovalent booster instead of an updated (bivalent) Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna booster if they have completed primary series vaccination but have not previously received a COVID-19 booster—and if they cannot or will not receive mRNA vaccines….
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
October 27, 2022
Coronavirus
Florida
Cases ( 7,189,354)
Deaths ( 82,065)
Deaths per million ( 3,821)
Kramer
I agree with you, but wish you had been more “scientific” in your post yourself. A brief recitation of the actual facts, for example, I don’t mind your description of either Boudreaux of Ladapo, but since I get flak for “ad hominems” on AB for saying the same sort of things about other people (and they say about me) I thought I’d pass on the word.
To tell the truth my own feelings about “the Right” is that they want to increase the sum of human misery, but I can’t say that out loud.
This Bondreaux guy is not somebody the public is paying attention to. Doesn’t mean he should not deal with the actual facts here, but his contribution to the COVID toll isn’t high. Much more damaging in my view were guys like President Biden who told us that the vaccine meant you couldn’t get COVID. This was bad bs with no sconce behind it, then leveraged to attempt to force major mandates. Consider that the uptake among the youngest is incredibly low. One parent in 100,000 has any idea of who Bondreaux might be, but most understand that the current administration has fed them significant bs about vaccines. Give the credibility issues 5 or 10 years to diminish, because that is what it it’ll take I’m guessing.
Eric
yep. you are guessing. At least Biden didn’t say you could inject bleach. If he said “you won’t get…” he was simplifying. And I don’t remember any mandates that interfered seriously with anyone’s freedom. Not as much anyway as the a–h—s who refuse to wear a mask in a pandemic and cough on you and you die.
I am the person on AB who warned against forcing people to get vaccinated. But I also said that people had a right to not let un-vaccinated people into their workspaces.
As for “the youngest” they may not die from the disease but they can transmit it. And at least in some cases the fastest way to stop a pandemic is to close the schools.
yep, what you don’t know can kill you…or , what’s worse, me.
btw, it’s Boudreaux, not Bondreaux. Ordinarily I wouldn’t bother to mention that. It’s a “typo” or at worst a “brain-o.” I make them all the time myself. But it should warn you that your brain, like mine, can let you down at times. Best not to be too sure of yourself.
It’s like, if someone asks you to cover your mouth when you cough…do it. There was a time when we all knew this was just good manners. Anymore, some of us brag about coughing in other people’s faces. The tragedy is that most people are too polite to say anything to you.
Sorry for the typo. Comical. One President riffs for a minute or so that disinfectants kill viruses and it would be great is something like that could work internally. This gets “remembered” as advocating injecting bleach. Another President deliberately grossly mischaracterizes properties of an Emergency Use vaccine while his administration is ramping up mandates (that the same President prior to then said he would not employ) and this is “simplifying”? Basically one President says an entirely nonconsequential statement that the “cool kids” decide is worth smirking about for years and the next lies about something with serious consequences and they defend that for some reason. I also don’t think people have a “right” to exclude the unvaccinated if that vaccine does not eliminate or clearly diminish transmission of the illness. They possibly have a right to not work with infected people. OSHA would have been on far better footing to enforce a test regime with no vaccine status consideration. But that would have taken money and effort and short-circuited the intended punishment of the heretics.
@Eric,
You bleated “One President riffs for a minute or so that disinfectants kill viruses and it would be great if something like that could work internally. This gets “remembered” as advocating injecting bleach” as though that’s the only nonsense Trump spewed. It isn’t. He and his administration lied repeatedly about something with serious consequences and you defend that for some reason. Let me refresh your memory:
Trump lied about science
As for whether “people have a “right” to exclude the unvaccinated if that vaccine does not eliminate or clearly diminish transmission of the illness.”
But it does diminish transmission of the illness. ” . . . staying up to date with your COVID-19 vaccinations means that you are less likely to have a breakthrough infection and, if you do get sick, you are less likely to get severely ill or die. Staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccination also means you are less likely to spread the disease to others . . .”
Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 Vaccination
Joel
thanks for the pointers to science. i was going to suggest Eric talk to you.
But you spoil it with “bleated.”
btw
i think Eric said he did NOT believe people had a right to exclude the unvaccinated if the vaccine did not eliminate the transmission of the disease
the way you quoted it, it looks like he (or I) said “people HAVE a right to exclude the unvaccinated if the vaccine does not diminsh transmission…”
that makes no sense.
Eric
i think we are beyond typo problems here. [first, you need not be sorry for “typos” whatever the cause. they happen all the time, even to me.] but you seem to hve a deeply entrenched need to rationalize beyond reason..at least beyond my reason.
If I were a better person and had more time I would try to work through that..your “reason” as well as mine. I might learn something. All I can suggest is you try to do it for yourself.
We have two ’eminent scientists’ to blame for this.
Edward Jenner & Louis Pasteur. Dang those guys!
Fred?
What no Salk?
Y’know, the was Salk & then there was Sabin. (I was a Polio Pioneer; you probably were also.) It turned out there were serious issues with the Salk vaccine, which were dealt with by the Sabin version. But yes, both men get much credit for dealing with a scourge that frightened the bejezus out of parents in the first half of the 20th century.
Dobbs
I don’t think the issue is the science, but the contempt with which people treat each other’s views.
I happen to think “one side” of this is insane or evil, but responding with contempt is counterproductive. And extremely dangerous to respond with “well, let us force them to do what we know is right.”
Could be I am just naive.
You got it.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And listening to stupid people as a courtesy is enhancing their stupidity.
I had what I considered to be a bad reaction to a shingles vaccine ten years ago, put me in a hospital for a few days, messed up my vision for about six months. My doctors insisted it was no such thing, but called the whole episode ‘idiopathic’, meaning ’cause unknown’ although they would have preferred further testing.
I have since learned that when asked if I ever had a bad reaction to a shot just to say no and go ahead with the shot. Usually, the disease is worse than the cure.
Fred
your mileage may vary
i had a bout of shingles. doc gave me some eye drops. i had trouble getting them into my eye. (can’t remember why). told doc. she prescribed another, stronger, type of eye drop. i read the label about side effects. scared me. on next visit i asked why she prescribed stronger, with worse side effects, after i told her i never got the first stuff into my eye at all? no answer. i told her i did not even try the stronger stuff. she looked contemptuous; said, maybe you didn’t do too much damage. “well, I got better.” [from monty python].
has been pretty much (not all) the story of my life with doctors…and also the story with doctors of some other people i know.
yes, I know, sometimes they get it right.
Can You Patent the Sun?
Never thought that Boudreaux’s insane babblings would not the most insane babblings in here.
I assume this Boudreaux guy is allied with the Great Barrington Declaration crazy people, who strongly urged people to just get covid so as to bring about herd immunity, but that’s a dangerous way to go.
Dobbs
Contempt seems to be a word with two meanings. Best I can manage to say it, there is contempt for an idea or even an ideology, which assumes there is truth and there is non-truth, and some non-truth seems ridiculous or at least very short sighted to the person exprssing contempt. The other meaning is contempt for the person and means something like belief that the other person does not deserve to be treated decently…mostly because he lacks the power to retaliate.
I distinguish between something like spontaneous expressions of exasperation or frustration..with an idea, and systematic dismissal of others as being “less than” the person expressing contempt.
As for Libertarians, I think of them as “forever fourteen” which is the same as “forever two with the keys to the family car.”
To me, Libertarians seem to be endlessly, perpetually selfish.
Eventually, one has to outgrow that attitude.
looks like my some of my comments have gone missing again. well, computers have a vested interest in people not getting too smart. they might try to run things again.
Ditto. Libertarians are weirdly selfish, in the extreme.
Fred
they would consider that a compliment.
No vaccine is risk-free. No drug is risk-free. No surgical procedure is risk-free.
Life isn’t risk-free. Your genome isn’t risk-free. Every time you drive, you accept the risk of being killed or maimed by a stranger. That risk is higher than the risk that you will be killed or maimed by a stranger wielding a firearm.
If you are concerned about the “risk” of mRNA vaccines, read the data. It’s out there. What the data say is that vaccination reduces your risk of ending up in the ED or the morgue, and reduces your risk of infecting someone else.
There is no such thing as metaphysical certitude in life, other than the certainty that you will eventually die of something.
The vaccine that I got ten years ago for shingles was no doubt zostavax, which is no longer in use as of about two years ago. It’s been replaced by shingrix which is ‘recombinant’ (i.e. not exactly ‘mRNA’ like the familiar covid vaccines of late.)
I got the two-dose shingrix vaccine when it became available. No serious reaction.
It’s a given that no vaccine is entirely safe, but I doubt that many expect a serious reaction, one that will put you in the hospital. And my doctors would not say that was the case with me either. If you have had a loved-one with shingles, you know you need that vaccine, whatever is available.
Dobbs,
i suspect the vaccine is a preventive. Since I already had the disease, a preventive was not what was needed. The doctor gave me some drops for my eyes, I guess they worked after i figured out how to get the original prescription into the eye.
Joel
all of that is true, but i don’t think it was ever at issue. people have different perceptions of what their particular risk is in a given situation. an example i like to use, since you brought it up, is that i have been told i have a greater risk driving my car than flying in an airplane. now that might be true, but it is based on averages. and the “average” driver includes a lot of drivers who drink. i do not drink, so my risk is less than the “average” driver. also, while driving my car i have some control over the risks and how i respond to them. in a commercial airplane i have no control of the risks. i have no doubt the pilot and mechanics and even the airline do a better j0b of reducing risks than i do. but there is still the issue of “control.”
think of this as a parable. not a bleat.
speaking of bleat (i was):
calling something stupid is an expression of exasperation…or maybe only strong disagreement.
“bleat” is an expression of contempt.
at least I think there is a difference.
i had the pleasure once of the newest, youngest, least experienced, and least educated person on my crew tell me that my plan for the day’s work was “stupid.” I said, “oh, how would you do it?” He told me. He was right. I handed him my book of calculations and said “you’re in charge today.” It went very well. I can’t explain why that gave me such pleasure if you don’t understand it already.