That is because in real science it often turns out there are multiple sides to a story and more than one has compelling evidence. But with respect to corona it’s presented as if ‘science’, as represented by one blessed scientist or group, is the universal and incontrovertible truth and everything else is ridiculous idiocy.

Look at the messaging surrounding Ivermectin. It is medication that has been prescribed to humans for decades. But it’s also prescribed to horses. Now someone has done some study that appears to show it works against corona and people start trying it on themselves. What’s the answer? Haha those idiots taking that horse dewormer! Which of course is nonsense. Is it smart to take medication for a purpose for which it is not known (whatever that means) to work? Debatable. Is it lunacy to try medication that’s not dangerous for a potentially lethal disease? You could always try praying, I guess.

The thinking in this comment is incredibly muddled.

Scientists and doctors have not concluded that ivermectin is effective. Some studies have claimed efficacy, most have not.

The dosages of ivermectin claimed to be effective against covid is much higher than the dosage that's safe for humans.

Horse dewormer is not the same as Ivermectin. It contains ivermectin, at a dosage higher than what's safe for humans, and it also contains other compounds that have not be judged safe for humans.

Why trust the muddled science on ivermectin, and ignore the more conclusive science on vaccines? If the scientific process is good enough to discover ivermectin, why isn't it good enough to discover good vaccines?

Has the high dosage been tested in humans? Is it just unknown whether it is safe, or is it proven that it is unsafe?

It depends, really. Sometimes it's just completely made up but ends up getting viral.

One particularly interesting one I found was an oft-repeated story about Australia "forcing kids to get the vaccine without their parents present". This claim is repeated in almost every anti-vax comment section -- is it based on anything?

The answer is, there's a program where parents can sign a permission slip for kids at school to get the vaccine. So, it's taking a kernel of truth "kids are getting the vaccine without their parents present", adding a bit of completely false info (the "forcing" part), and then repackaging it into a highly repostable nugget of scary misinformation.

>One particularly interesting one I found was an oft-repeated story about Australia "forcing kids to get the vaccine without their parents present". This claim is repeated in almost every anti-vax comment section -- is it based on anything?

Yes, it is. Australia did a jab campaign inviting 24K children inside a stadium, and not permitting parents to enter with their child. https://twitter.com/unhealthytruth/status/142739608697777766...

Specifically, students in their final year of high school, ahead of end-of-school exams.

It was an entirely voluntary operation you had to sign up for...

https://apnews.com/article/health-australia-coronavirus-pand...

I appreciate how that person evidently just...stopped reading my comment halfway through to repeat the exact same piece of misinformation. Like clockwork!

I appreciate how they answered your question and everything they said in their post was factually correct.

>Yes, it is. Australia did a jab campaign inviting 24K children inside a stadium, and not permitting parents to enter with their child

This is what the misinformation story was based on, the gov invited 24k children inside, it did not allow parents.

It lets them "research" it, see that the kernel is true, and then extrapolate from there.

All the best lies have a kernel of truth. This is not remotely unique to antivax.

How should I interpret for example the data from Israel? Highly vaccinated country with both cases and deaths peaking:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/israel/

> How should I interpret for example the data from Israel?

By reading the following analysis and familiarizing yourself with Simpson's paradox:

https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-...

You're spreading misinformation. Stop it.

That link does not explain why the number of infections and deaths is peaking right now.

The short answer is Delta. The longer answer is:

1) Delta is enormously more contagious and so will tear through the unvaccinated faster and will create more breakthrough infections simply due to greater chances of exposure,

2) Delta is also more virulent and is more likely to put young people (who are less likely to be vaccined) in the hospital,

3) Breakthrough infections are more likely with the elderly or at-risk populations due to poorer immune response, and Delta being more virulent means they're more likely to land in the hospital, and

4) Assuming some reduction in vaccine effectiveness over time, that'll impact high-risk populations first since they've been vaccinated the longest. And those folks have a much higher likelihood of ending up in the hospital because of their high risk status.

The data out of Israel plainly shows that vaccinated people have significantly better outcomes: They are much less likely to get seriously ill and die.

Stop it.

Cases are mostly irrelevant, death peak is lower than previous deak peaks

>Cases are mostly irrelevant

Tell that to Australia?

Sure: Australia, stop focusing on cases and pay attention to hospitalization and death rates. Idk what your comment was meant to convey.

You should interpret it in the context of other countries.