You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Ernielynch
Apologies Cougar but imo that is a ridiculous, and frankly childish, comment!
I hesitate to reply to that specific B-Word on this thread but it also illustrates a much wider issue with echo chambers and t'interwebby.
Perhaps apology is not the best word? Perhaps "acknowledgement" ??? I tend to agree with the rest but I don't think getting hung up over apology/acknowledgement etc. moves anything forwards and misses the main point?
What the WIDER Brexit illustrates to me is how there WERE so many different "Brexit"'s in 2015 all clustered around echo chambers that ultimately whatever "primary outcome" was being sold most were never going to see it because many were mutually exclusive OR because the inevitable consequence of one would lead to a consequence the echo chamber would find equally or more displeasing. Almost every "Brexit benefit" fell under this such as for the "Sovereignty Brexiters" Northern Ireland was ALWAYS going to be unfavourable to most people that are "nationalist unionists"... there was never a parallel universe where the 2 were compatible. Equally I think the anti-brexit (subtly different to Remainer IMHO) rhetoric is to throw labels like "racist" at Brexiteers.
National politics isn’t some sort of playground game
Sadly this is where I disagree ... because that is exactly what national politics has become in Westminster.
The question is possibly way bigger than Brexit... and for me boils down to
a) Social media like/dislike philosophy - interactions and engagement (nothing specific to STW here)
Sadly perhaps that is what sells advertising space. In most cases advertisers are engagement driven and getting people to argue and define everything as binary in a cats vs dog way has become normal. A balanced "cat's and dogs both have advantages and disadvantages" doesn't drive revenue or even further interactions thus making for binary outcomes. Even when it is not ad driven this philosophy prevails.
[that could be applied to the B-word but a lot more besides]
b) Grass roots hijacking .. (astroturfing) and because of the social media binary like/dislike (love hate) philosophy this also end up being binary.
c) Quasi-religious beliefs ... (how much is quasi being a changeable thing)
You have mentioned previously but to paraphrase anyone with 1/2 brain and a calculator could work out most of the UK are financially better off under labour but still vote for tory's. Despite the ability to fact check they don't... (even assuming everyone only voted with their financial interests) because it is against their beliefs but also because echo chambers amplify and conflate.
In terms of the B-word that might be lies about bananas ... in terms of party politics it might be something completely different but the echo chamber amplifies the conflation of two (often more) things that are not really linked or extend a rare incidence of something with "that will be the norm".
My local "free paper interweb" does this all the time .. an example might be some single mum with 6 kids at the other end of the country receiving some benefits .. though the "editorial" won't mention where or indeed any details that show this to be a near one-off... it generates the love/hate comments and their advertising space gets more valuable.
There are lots of things that are not bad of themselves until they are hijacked/conflated and essentially where you MUST support all tenets of the quasi-religion not just the ones make sense to you (or science).
If you don't support or question any of the tenets of faith then expect the same cult like behaviour of mass pile ons and being asked/told to leave. non of this is new, it's as old as mankind/language however t'interwebby connects far removed people who would overwise be fringe.
For me the "classic" (to use a cross Atlantic example) are the pro-life/pro-gun/pro death penalty echo chambers... and the "quasi" is probably not really "quasi" however the "religious" aspect seems to cross over .. and although that might seem unimportant the "religious" element usually seems to be accepting "all tents of the faith without question". (even if the adherents don't see it as a faith)
The conflation and deliberate confusion is usually if not always for financial interest but it is enabled by the echo chambers and b/c above (and probably more).
Said it years ago. Every thread is a potential Brexit thread to a handful of posters on here.
Seems to be the same warring factions who have poisoned most forms of social media with their old media agendas and tactics. Saturation bombing, intentional misinterpretation and railroading.
I expect it will ramp-up as the most overrepresented generation ever, once again pull out their sousaphones, email death threats and fap themselves silly on their online hearts and minds mission come the next GE.
Meh
I do think most of the people bleating about being "shut-down" in debates are actually just butthurt (can I say that?) because nobody/few people on the forum agree with them, or just dismisses their opinion out of hand.
The oft quoted Brexit and Covid threads are good examples of this. Announcing you are an anti-vaxxer on the Covid thread would evoke a particular response, as will coming-out today as a unrepentant brexiteer. As would, I imagine, backing the Tories on strikes or Braverman on immigration policy. You could call that an "echo chamber" I suppose - I would call that (those examples) "being called-out for voicing an opinion based on willful ignorance, or something worse". While it's important to hear everyone's views - it's equally important (I think) that those views are challenged, more so now when politicians seem even more comfortable lying to the public than anytime I can remember.
How far that STW response would be for some kind of "UK standardised" response is interesting - ie: how far is STWs demographic skewed from that of the wider UK. I suspect we are further towards the left, but still broadly centrist.
The louder voices do certainly amplify any skewing that's going on, simply because most people aren't inclined to post: "I agree with what most people are saying".
I don't think it's an echo chamber... Lot's of views are aired and you don't get banned unless you're being a dick.
I've had a few warnings but in retrospect they were fair.
The mods here do about as good a job as they can.
it definitely smells of boys
Is that surprising for an MTB forum with MTB being a (at a guess) 95% white male activity.
may just be better summed as an enabler of narcissists.
Zing.
😀
batfink
I do think most of the people bleating about being “shut-down” in debates are actually just butthurt (can I say that?) because nobody/few people on the forum agree with them, or just dismisses their opinion out of hand.
Those are two different things ... but
The oft quoted Brexit and Covid threads are good examples of this. Announcing you are an anti-vaxxer on the Covid thread would evoke a particular response
So here is an example .. there is a (potentially huge) difference between an anti-vaxxer and someone who doesn't want or shouldn't be vaccinated for a specific vaccine. There is also a difference between public health and personal.
I am most certainly not anti-vaccinations and most of us wouldn't even be here to argue as our grandparents would not have been born or died in childhood.
If we leave Covid aside look at oral polio vaccines, paralyse far more people are paralysed as a result of oral polio vaccine than natural polio and mutation of the oral vaccine is known to be the source. The older injectable vaccine however can't.
I don't know enough to say if we should do like some other countries and switch back.. however I do take issue with the wording on the .gov web for example because it is deliberately misleading.
Because of the success of the polio vaccination programme, there have been no cases of natural polio infection in the UK for over 30 years ...
Ultimately very few people are susceptible to polio so the government lying because it assumes people are too stupid to understand might seem OK or acceptable and of course the drug companies have to make their money but it's a very short term solution to "people being stupid" in 2023 because ultimately people will find out and the net result will be more antivax sentiment and the drug companies will never have made enough money but we have a election cycle so any government can just pass that issue to their successors.
Jumping back to Covid, the government has done the same thing.. just quicker. They lied and spread misinformation as suited them even contradicting themselves as they saw fit at any time and the net result is a mass distrust of public health.
Much as the mass deaths are bad there are far far worse things than Covid...
as will coming-out today as a unrepentant brexiteer.
Although I'm an unrepentant remainer I agree and ....
As would, I imagine, backing the Tories on strikes or Braverman on immigration policy. You could call that an “echo chamber” I suppose – I would call that (those examples) “being called-out for voicing an opinion based on willful ignorance, or something worse”.
Again 2 seperate things as is the conflation ....
I don't agree with any of those but making it into a divisive thing won't pan out long term IMHO.
We could put a venn diagram wrapper around Brexit and Braverman and look at the intersection of people not wanting to live with large numbers of people with different cultures.
Labelling that as racist is just deliberate mis representation whatever your personal ideals.
Humans are simply xenophobic and tribal by nature. (including immigrants)
Doubtless SOME people have that view AND are racist... but that doesn't make every xenophobe racist.
What it does do is put the xenophobes into the same echo chambers as the racists...
While it’s important to hear everyone’s views – it’s equally important (I think) that those views are challenged, more so now when politicians seem even more comfortable lying to the public than anytime I can remember.
Although I agree
I do think most of the people bleating about being “shut-down” in debates are actually just butthurt (can I say that?) because nobody/few people on the forum agree with them, or just dismisses their opinion out of hand.
So assuming we can say butthurt...???
Maybe the other side of this is many people are butt hurt because their belief system is challenged and they expect everyone to support shutting down the person that challenged it. As per my earlier post these beliefs are not single isolated beliefs but what would or should be described as tennets of faith through conflation.
To jump back to vaccinations... whilst overall anyone would struggle to factually show vaccination against disease in general is not overwhelmingly positive that doesn't make specific vaccines for specific people positive.
Often it is difficult to tell if someone is a socio-path or just believes in a set of tennets of faith.
For example I struggle to see how someone could accept anthropomorphic climate change and prefer millions of deaths over accepting solutions that go against some of the "tennets" of their faith.
That's a long post so I'm going to respond, but I don't really see you disagreeing with me much in there?
On the subject of the Covid thread and "announcing you are an anti-vaxxer"..... I really do mean anti-vaxxer. I don't mean "vaccine sceptic", or "vaccine curious" or whatever. There are of course heaps of very legitimate concerns over vaccines - covid and otherwise. You will recall that the covid thread was (by-and-large) an incredibly constructive place to come and discuss, theorise, ask questions, share experiences and interpret the governments often nonsensical/inconsistent messaging. People with questions and/or concerns about the vaccine were welcomed and these were discussed/explained by a number of people (yourself included if memory serves).
Anti-vaxxers/covid deniers on that thread were actually treated pretty generously - and I would probably use this as an example of the opposite of an echo chamber - literal pages of posts were spent trying to explain facts/science to people. However, if someone did declare/reveal themselves be an actual, proper anti-vaxxer, I could imagine that they would probably feel butthurt (all one word I believe) because what they proudly heralded as an opinion formed by their superior intellect was roundly dismissed by actual experts as complete nonsense.
It's not quite the same for the Brexit thread, which is why I said "as will coming-out today as a unrepentant brexiteer". If somebody did that, today... would it be worth trying to engage with them? My own view (and I suspect the view of the vast majority of people on here) is that such a person would be labeled an absolute **** ing idiot, or a troll. Does that mean it's an echo chamber?
For me the distinction is in how much the "echoes" diverge from what the "uk standardized" view is. As I said, I think probably STW is probably slightly less tolerant of unrepentant Brexiteers and anti-vaxxers than the UK as a whole..... but not much. The caveat is that the Brexit thread was/is probably skewed towards a few shouty individuals but again, not by a huge amount I don't think
batfink
That’s a long post so I’m going to respond, but I don’t really see you disagreeing with me much in there?
Not all all... I guess the point is my focus is on the harm echo chambers can do and how people are sucked into them.
On the subject of the Covid thread and “announcing you are an anti-vaxxer”….. I really do mean anti-vaxxer. I don’t mean “vaccine sceptic”, or “vaccine curious” or whatever. There are of course heaps of very legitimate concerns over vaccines – covid and otherwise.
Just taking that.. so the point really is (well 2 points) ..
Firstly it's not binary pro/anti full stop which you seem to also be saying but then neither is the "actual Brexit".
Taking the two streams (or whatever I/we call them) together then there is IMHO an observable difference in tolerance on one side of each to the other and an assumption it's fine to misquote, make insults (such as racist) or conflate and expect people to pile in defending your conflation.
This is coming from someone who is a staunch remainer and if it's a thing "pro-vax" however I don't really feel the word "pro-vax" is even legitimate in a context of are vaccines beneficial in a wide context.
People with questions and/or concerns about the vaccine were welcomed and these were discussed/explained by a number of people (yourself included if memory serves).
I (and others more qualified) certainly try but at the same time that doesn't mean it isn't an echo chamber.
If anything the most dangerous echo chamber is probably the one you don't realise you are in.
and interpret the governments often nonsensical/inconsistent messaging
I'm still with you ... not disagreeing just my "wider" take was to a large extent the governments "nonsensical/inconsistent messaging" was in part and by design to create echo chambers. I don't know if it was written up in phycology today but 2 practicing phycologists I know but don't know each other referred to it as "Orwellian Doublethink"
This is where my perspective differs....
literal pages of posts were spent trying to explain facts/science to people. However, if someone did declare/reveal themselves be an actual, proper anti-vaxxer, I could imagine that they would probably feel butthurt (all one word I believe) because what they proudly heralded as an opinion formed by their superior intellect was roundly dismissed by actual experts as complete nonsense
Yes pages were spent and by people far better qualified than myself. What was missing was these people were already victims of echo chambers and I'll assume (feel free to comment) less equipped than you or I to make sense of the utter nonsense being propagated by the government or distinguish what was non-sense or not relevant to Covid vaccines in another non STW echo chamber.
If you accept fully or partially the "doublethink" and that people with less of a background in sciences or medicine were being given totally plausible (and not always untrue) pages in alternative echo chambers then many of those pages were not relevant or convincing to the "anti-vax" brigade who have been exposed and welcomed into a anti-vax echo chamber where the main rule/doctrine is to accept all "tenets of the faith".
To some extent that's the nature of a Single track forum (who have a leaning to riding) and echo chambers set up or have been pushed into specifically "anti-vax" who might have a "chat forum" where some people ride bikes. I still think however to not be an echo chamber means dealing with these sorts of things as beliefs (or not).
It’s not quite the same for the Brexit thread, which is why I said “as will coming-out today as a unrepentant brexiteer”. If somebody did that, today… would it be worth trying to engage with them? My own view (and I suspect the view of the vast majority of people on here) is that such a person would be labeled an absolute **** ing idiot, or a troll. Does that mean it’s an echo chamber?
The alternative you haven't considered is that they are basically a sociopath.
In my experience a lot of unrepentant Brexiters are quite open about how much harm they are willing to cause to others (in the UK, I mean - foreigners don't even count in their reckoning). The young, the elite, the poor, the rich, they all deserve what they get and it's worth it to give the Germans a bloody nose.
(Note: no German noses were actually bloodied in this act of national self-harm.)
The alternative you haven’t considered is that they are basically a sociopath.
Yup, makes life a lot simpler. What better explanation than "they are basically" sociopaths?
Saves a lot of trouble searching for more complex reasons.
Yes pages were spent and by people far better qualified than myself. What was missing was these people were already victims of echo chambers and I’ll assume (feel free to comment) less equipped than you or I to make sense of the utter nonsense being propagated by the government or distinguish what was non-sense or not relevant to Covid vaccines in another non STW echo chamber.
Whilst this may or may not be true, we also had actual scientists here explaining actual science. We had people who were directly involved with vaccine development and research. Even if we accept that one "opinion" is just as valid as another (spoiler:
In other words, whilst 'normal' people were struggling to make sense of everything and "do the right thing" (an argument often offered by anti-vax parents), that doesn't mean that there aren't still people who actually know what they're talking about. "I don't trust the government / big pharma so I'm going to do the opposite of what they say" is woolly-headed.
Of course, separating the wheat from the chaff can be a challenge...
there is IMHO an observable difference in tolerance
This is true, but there is an observable difference in consequences. It is a matter of public record just how much damage the Brexiters have done to us personally, economically, socially, politically and culturally. Whereas how much damage have remainers done to Brexiters? Maybe hurt their feelings a bit? There is no equivalence there.
there is IMHO an observable difference in tolerance
The flaw here is that we shouldn't be expected to tolerate the intolerant. I'm not particularly tolerant of racists and homophobes, should I be?
how much damage have remainers done to Brexiters?
Oh, haven't you been listening? It's all the remainers' fault that brexit isn't working, we've sabotaged it. We'd all have had solid gold houses by now if we'd just believed in it a bit harder.
Sorry SteveXTC, I'm really struggling to understand your point there - there seems to be a lot I disagree with in what you've written - but I'm going to attribute that to me not understanding adequately.
For me, an echo chamber is an environment without any diversity of thought. However, while diversity of thought can be good - you do reach a point that you have to determine whether somebodies "diverse thinking" has any merit. Somebody who is a victim of an echo chamber might dismiss any thinking that's not aligned with their own as without merit - but I don't really see that happening here.
I think diverse ideas are pretty well scrutinized here, and generally I think the 'severity" of that scrutiny is proportional to how diverse the idea is. I think people are often offended when their way of thinking isn't attributed the merit that they believe is warranted - particularly if it's roundly/unceremoniously rebuffed.
I obviously think echo chambers are real..... but I also think so is people crying "echo chamber!" when what they mean is "everybody disagrees with me, but instead of considering that I might possibly be wrong, I'm going to flounce off"
If we leave Covid aside look at oral polio vaccines, paralyse far more people are paralysed as a result of oral polio vaccine than natural polio and mutation of the oral vaccine is known to be the source.
Well...
The first statement is probably correct, but it's because everyone is vaccinated, so almost no one is being infected with 'natural polio'. Take the vaccine away, and far more people would be paralysed than are currently paralysed by the vaccine. So, while true, your presentation is somewhat disingenuous. You could argue that since there is so little natural polio around it would be safer not to use the OPV at all, but that would lead to a resurgence of the virus.
Mutation is a separate issue, and it is rare for the person being vaccinated to be affected - they end up shedding a viable virus and other unvaccinated people are at risk from this.
also re:
assuming we can say butthurt…??
...it really depends how merkin you want to sound. Personally I welcome a diversity of views, not just those I agree with but wrong ones as well (benefit of an 'interest' site like this, mtbers aren't that homogeneous). But I'd happily ban creeping americanisms "lame ass" - would you say that in the pub?
(Actually I do look at some right wing sites and btl comments partly for the frisson, and also for the challenge of seeing a completely different reality where I dunno, climate change is some sort of corporate conspiracy. I don't engage but it's good that some folks do.)
The first statement is probably correct, but it’s because everyone is vaccinated, so almost no one is being infected with ‘natural polio’. Take the vaccine away, and far more people would be paralysed than are currently paralysed by the vaccine.
Well said. It's akin to arguing that many more people are KSI'ed in car crashes due to the deceleration damage to internal organs caused by seatbelts, than die as a result of going through the windscreen.
So we should get rid of seatbelts.
onewheelgood
Well…
The first statement is probably correct, but it’s because everyone is vaccinated, so almost no one is being infected with ‘natural polio’. Take the vaccine away, and far more people would be paralysed than are currently paralysed by the vaccine. So, while true, your presentation is somewhat disingenuous. You could argue that since there is so little natural polio around it would be safer not to use the OPV at all, but that would lead to a resurgence of the virus.
Mutation is a separate issue, and it is rare for the person being vaccinated to be affected – they end up shedding a viable virus and other unvaccinated people are at risk from this.
Aren't you forgetting the alternative as it's not a binary vaccine or not .. or have you been listening to echo chambers? (.gov/NHS) - this is perhaps a good demonstration of (for want of a better word and because it's sorta cool) "how echo chambers go viral"
It's not oral vaccine or no vaccine it's oral, injectable, no vaccine.
My understanding is the injectable is less (extent ?) effective but sterile (unable to propagate/mutate)
As I said, I'm not a virologist, epidemologist...
This seems to be a decent summary
theotherjonv
Well said. It’s akin to arguing that many more people are KSI’ed in car crashes due to the deceleration damage to internal organs caused by seatbelts, than die as a result of going through the windscreen.
So we should get rid of seatbelts.
Yep all we are missing now is a few ill educated people piling on who believe the government and NHS websites over what appears to be established research by well qualified people.
Note on polio vaccination:
If your child was offered oral poliovirus vaccine in the UK tomorrow, you would be right to refuse it in favour of the injectable. But that's not going to be offered here.
The oral polio vaccine is in use in only a few countries, those in which polio remains endemic (****stan, Afghanistan etc) This is simply due to the logistics and urgency of organising mass immunisation in remote communities and because it is better at delivering a a more powerful and swifter immune response to the virus.
Yes, it carries a 1 in 4 million chance of paralysis, but the same risk/benefit analysis as for any vaccine has been carried out. Using the injectable would mean far more patchy community coverage in these regions, which would mean more actual polio cases, which would mean far more paralysis. Withdrawing the oral poliovirus vaccine from those countries would lead to far more suffering.
thecaptain
The alternative you haven’t considered is that they are basically a sociopath.
Where do you draw a line between sociopath's and believers?
If someone truly believes that their god put our royal family on the spiritual and symbolic SOVEREIGN head of some lines drawn on maps and any sort of depravation is justified are they sociopath's or zealots?
If you view this as a monotheistic religion then there are other tenets of that faith that must also be "believed" to some extent be that "self flagellation" or "burning of heretics" and other "beliefs" are simply wrong.
Thanks @martinhutch. I just thought that with his extensive research Steve would be aware that OPV was only used these days where IPV wasn't practical.
Yep all we are missing now is a few ill educated people piling on who believe the government and NHS websites over what appears to be established research by well qualified people.
Easy there.... it wasn't a comment on whether the oral or injectable is preferable, in fact was unaware there was a major difference and that video was good, thanks. And I'll admit, I find your posts too lengthy that frequently I scan and don't read so may have missed the point.
I was merely responding with a metaphor for:
"polio vaccines can cause paralysis in a small number of cases and we don't have polio any more anyway so why bother with the risk?
But now I've read further:
I don’t know enough to say if we should do like some other countries and switch back.. however I do take issue with the wording on the .gov web for example because it is deliberately misleading.
from the Gov link you supplied
Side effects
Your child may have some redness, swelling or tenderness in the arm where they had the injection, this will usually disappear in a few days. Rarely, a hard lump may appear in the same place but this will also resolve on its own, usually over a few weeks.
- seems like we are on the injectable anyway, so I'm not sure if I've missed your point?
seems like we are on the injectable
The US has used the injectable vaccine since 2000 and the UK since 2004.
Aren’t you forgetting the alternative as it’s not a binary vaccine or not ..
...
It’s not oral vaccine or no vaccine it’s oral, injectable, no vaccine.
Point of note here, it was you who painted a binary scenario in the first place. "look at oral polio vaccines, paralyse far more people are paralysed as a result of oral polio vaccine than natural polio" - you never mentioned injections.
In any case. It would seem from discussions here that injection is better than oral which is why we use it, and that oral is better than none at all which is why countries use it in places where quantity > quality. Would anyone disagree with that?
Is it an echo chamber when everyone is simply correct?
Where do you draw a line between sociopath’s and believers?
Specifically referring to people who were quite happy to cause substantial hardship and suffering to others, often spitefully and vindictively. Like my relative who said they didn't care if civil war broke out in NI, the local hobby farmer I spoke to who didn't care about the damage done to other businesses because apparently the EU made her put 2 tags in her sheep ears rather than just one and this was unspeakably cruel....(their little flock wasn't really commercial anyway, so no great loss if they lost their market).
If someone really believed that Brexit was going to be good, well at least they are probably well-meaning in principle, just a bit gullible, maybe thick. They weren't voting deliberately to harm others.
thecaptain
Specifically referring to people who were quite happy to cause substantial hardship and suffering to others, often spitefully and vindictively. Like my relative who said they didn’t care if civil war broke out in NI
I don't know your relative obviously but is that really different to people believing in say crusades or burning heretics or buying pardons?
If someone really believed that Brexit was going to be good, well at least they are probably well-meaning in principle, just a bit gullible, maybe thick. They weren’t voting deliberately to harm others.
I suspect OUR definition of "good" is different to some others.
they didn’t care if civil war broke out in NI
So to use that example many Americans donated to NORAID... does that make them "not good"?
Personally (ie. my own perspective) I don't remember a time when a republic for the island of Ireland didn't seem a "good" end and somewhat an inevitability given relative population growth ... but donating money for guns, bombs and terrorism was never a "good" way to achieve that.
If someone really believed that Brexit was going to be good, well at least they are probably well-meaning in principle, just a bit gullible, maybe thick. They weren’t voting deliberately to harm others.
But for them "good" could be that the Royal family who were chosen by their god should have sovereignty.
I suspect a large overlap on the Venn diagrams between those who believe freeing NI / uniting Ireland and belief a god had sex with a virgin who had a child.. which by itself is one thing except those most strongly in favour of "preserving the union for the monarch" likely believe the same and both must on the whole see it as "doing good" even though some people have to die. [There are of course those that are vindictive.. but I suspect the "doing good" is still there in a form we can't recognise??]
Your relative may believe some of this or may simply believe we are better off all starving than johhny furriner taking our jobs or one of the other tenets of the "Brexit faith".
Consider there is nothing "different" about Irish/NI people any more than Germans were intrinsically evil in the 1940's.. HOWEVER through echo chambers enough believed and enough believed enough to go along with.
So please consider I still don't know your relative... but I would be VERY surprised if their view is not shaped by echo chambers... they might be a right evil git but more likely they believed the dogma they got fed.
Cougar
Point of note here, it was you who painted a binary scenario in the first place. “look at oral polio vaccines, paralyse far more people are paralysed as a result of oral polio vaccine than natural polio” – you never mentioned injections.
That's still true... the injectable one cannot infect others....
In any case. It would seem from discussions here that injection is better than oral which is why we use it, and that oral is better than none at all which is why countries use it in places where quantity > quality. Would anyone disagree with that?
I don't know where the limits are. I think it's established that in areas with VERY high natural polio the oral one is better and in cases of zero the injectable one but there is somewhere in the middle and I (and you) are not qualified to determine it.
Is it an echo chamber when everyone is simply correct?
My initial point is actually the wording on the .gov website.
What is says (from my use of english) is 100% of cases in the UK for the last however long are a direct result of oral vaccinations but they gloss over and aim to mislead not even mentioning on that link what vaccine is being given.
onewheelgood
I just thought that with his extensive research Steve would be aware that OPV was only used these days where IPV wasn’t practical.
My extensive research was YouTube algorithm suggesting a single video and then a good search to the .gov website so hardly extensive BUT (and this is the crux) probably as extensive as most of the population (London) with kids who might be being offered a vaccine.
As theotherjonv then said
But now I’ve read further:
me
I don’t know enough to say if we should do like some other countries and switch back.. however I do take issue with the wording on the .gov web for example because it is deliberately misleading.
– seems like we are on the injectable anyway, so I’m not sure if I’ve missed your point?
If you compare the .gov site its all rather vague, doesn't actually state if its injections only (I guess you could then look up the actual vaccines but as a public information site its lacking)
Side effects
Your child may have some redness, swelling or tenderness in the arm where they had the injection,
You mighty INFER that .. but it's not clearly stated.
It doesn't say anything about why we switched or if its definitive (are they using both) etc. or that 100% of UK infections have come from mutations of the oral (which is more than inferred if their English is correctly used) and the SciShow vid I posted is better researched and better worded....
.gov
Because of the success of the polio vaccination programme, there have been no cases of natural polio infection in the UK for over 30 years (the last case was in 1984) and polio was eradicated from the whole of Europe in 2003.
It clearly fails to mention the reason for 100% of those infections was oral vaccine and that is why they are offering IV.
If someone was running an anti-vax echo chamber that is just providing vague stuff that can be taken in whatever context they wish.
It's clearly self contradictory
All children aged 1 to 9 years in London need to have a dose of polio vaccine now. For some children this may be an extra dose of polio vaccine, on top of their routine vaccinations. In other children it may just bring them up to date.
Those who cannot have the vaccine
There are very few reasons why children cannot receive the polio vaccine. If your child had a serious allergic reaction to a previous vaccination or to certain uncommon antibiotics (neomycin, polymyxin or streptomycin) you may want to check with your doctor.
All means ALL...
Again they clearly fail to mention these are all IV.
Which vaccine will your child be offered
We are using 3 different types of vaccines that all provide excellent protection against polio – they are already used in the routine programme and safely given to millions of children each year.
Mutation is a separate issue, and it is rare for the person being vaccinated to be affected – they end up shedding a viable virus and other unvaccinated people are at risk from this.
I understand that having watched the SciShow vid... my issue is the .gov site fails to bother explaining.
Essentially we are down to the first post where I mentioned it and whether it's acceptable to lie to people because they are thick or poorly educated or simply don't have the time to research.
I think the wording is fuzzy, I agree with you on that. I also think you're trying to squeeze a conspiracy out of it rather than accepting Hanlon's razor as an explanation.
I'd also add that although it's on the Gov.uk website, it's actual under the banner of the UKHSA which is an executive agency of the DHSC and as such is civil service rather than gov.
Again they clearly fail to mention these are all IV.
Possibly because that’s the only option available in this country, as has been pointed out numerous times in previous posts.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
I don’t know where the limits are. I think it’s established that in areas with VERY high natural polio the oral one is better and in cases of zero the injectable one but there is somewhere in the middle and I (and you) are not qualified to determine it.
Based solely on what I've read on this thread and assuming that to be correct, it seems pretty clear cut to me. We administer the vaccine by injection unless there's a reason why we cannot. I might speculate that such a reason could be any one or more of: availability of the vaccine in a given country; lack of human resource to administer it; required speed of response; cost; cultural or religious objection; anti-vax fear and rhetoric; logistics and transportation; shelf life in more remote areas; no doubt plenty of others I haven't thought of.
I may be wrong but I would assume that there's nothing particularly special about the areas with "VERY high natural polio" other than they're areas with a VERY low immunisation programme. I think maybe you've got cause and effect arse-backwards.
I genuinely don't understand what your argument is here beyond wanting the info on gov.uk to be more comprehensive.
Vaccines are not given IV. Its sub cutaneous or intramuscular not intravenous.
theotherjonv
I think the wording is fuzzy, I agree with you on that. I also think you’re trying to squeeze a conspiracy out of it rather than accepting Hanlon’s razor as an explanation.
I’d also add that although it’s on the Gov.uk website, it’s actual under the banner of the UKHSA which is an executive agency of the DHSC and as such is civil service rather than gov.
Nope my point is actually that others will try and squeeze a conspiracy theory out of it because it is so fuzzy.
This is just a "random" (YouTube algorithm example) of how people are mis informed/lied to routinely when it's viewed as convenient AND THEN end up on conspiracy sites/echo chambers.
It's also not very trustworthy to anyone with a half decent command of English (self contradictory etc. already discussed) - that said there is still an element of what they say vs don't as if they are a marketing company and a list of do say/don't say and lying through omission. [Compare to £350M on the side of a bus or Boris saying it's no worse than a cold or ...]
You can have Occam and Hanlon at the same table, in the same room at the same time and the simplest explanation is almost always someone is making money whilst exploiting the stupid or through threats to the livelyhood of the not stupid. [Just to use a example that is temporarily incorrect imagine Dominic Cummings lording over the "what do we put in the information page" - so obviously the timing doesn't fit but someone of his slimy ilk]
If the aim is to give parents confidence in getting a child vaccinated it is IMHO a complete home goal because (and this is the crucial part) anyone who doesn't know what the specific vaccines are or see's the obvious contradictions and inaccuracies is going to have to google and has a fairly high probability of finding a conspiracy echo chamber before they get answers.
Example:
Possibly because that’s the only option available in this country, as has been pointed out numerous times in previous posts.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
So how are thickies like me meant to know this? Did I get an email I missed or was this posted out to me and lost in the mail?
Perfect echo chamber response....that will drive people you must regard as stupid to go look elsewhere.
Cougar
I genuinely don’t understand what your argument is here beyond wanting the info on gov.uk to be more comprehensive.
My argument is that mis-information like this is what drives people to google and lands them on conspiracy sites.
It's not only not comprehensive but self contradictory.
This is a case of write once/read many ...as far as I can tell the "official" source of information for those who's children are being offered the vaccine (that' s a lot of parents in London) so I'd think worth doing properly, accurately and non ambiguously.
Again my initial mention of this was pretty much an random example that illustrates how people create echo chambers and drive people to them and how poor communication from what should be authoritative sources feeds that. "Not all vaccines are good for everyone"... being the example - ie it's not binary.
The background to this being the UK public's trust in government run organisations around health (amongst other things) in the UK appears to be at an absolute low. Moreover this seems to increasingly split into divisive echo chambers.
A semi-random (STW appropriate) example might be bike thefts. Police forces can post all they want about how they have reduced (reported) bike theft to almost never happening yet everyone see's stolen bike posts daily it's just most people don't even report it unless it's for insurance.
The more they post about their success the less confidence people have.
mis-information like this
Like what? Saying all kids should have the vaccine though a very few may not be able to is not misinformation. Unless I guess you squint really really hard to see what you want to see.
Vaccines are not given IV. Its sub cutaneous or intramuscular not intravenous.
I eventually worked out he meant Injectable Vaccine rather than intravenous. Shows how easy it is to be imprecise, even in a post complaining about the imprecision within government information.
It might be helpful to link to the page you're referring to then we're all, erm, on the same page. It's hard to discuss something I haven't read.
So how are thickies like me meant to know this?
Well, you seem to have found it out just fine?
You've kinda answered your own question here. The info on gov.uk has to be accessible, it has to be presented in a manner that can readily be understood by everyone including the 'thickies'. There's always going to have to be a compromise here. You're looking at bitesize information and expecting PubMed.
“Not all vaccines are good for everyone”… being the example – ie it’s not binary.
Not all vaccines are good for everyone, this is absolutely true. But in isolation it lacks context, you could say the same about peanuts.
johnx2
Like what?
That's self contradiction. The deliberate misinformation is where they say no natural infections and omit to say that means 100% were due to oral vaccines or where they just completely don't mention they are using injectable vaccines.
The point at which something is acceptable to be deliberately misleading through omission IMHO depends strongly on the source and the subject. (In this case vaccinations on a .gov domain) I should expect accurate and lack of omissions.
The UK is IMHO trending towards the US caveat emptor ... where lying means "you can prove it in court beyond reasonable doubt that the omission was deliberately meant to mislead" rather than "we know what you said and its not actually true"
Decades ago I saw an American advert for branded tylenol (paracetomol/acetaminophen) where the whole advert was making non false claims about "generic products" but totally failing to mention theirs was no different.
At the time I was quite shocked as that wouldn't have got onto UK TV at the time.
Unless I guess you squint really really hard to see what you want to see.
I'd reword that to "you squint really really hard to see what THEY DON'T WANT you want to see"
Examples such as "We are building 12 new hospitals", "we are providing tens of thousands of new nurses" etc. make me question now what is being said but what is not.
In other words the way it is so poorly written makes me question the omissions and seek more from google.
To extend that it's the same as "There were no parties at number 10" etc. or I bundled the family in the car and drive to Barnard Castle to see if I could see properly to drive ???? etc. etc.
Wow - that's worthy of an "I struggle with long sentences" if ever
If anyone wanted, you know, full (-ish anyway) UK position on polio:
includes the line "OPV is no longer available for routine use and will only be available for outbreak control"
but even then, for close contacts of a case:
To prevent ongoing transmission, IPV-containing vaccine should be administered to household contacts of people with suspected polio immediately
(after stool samples have been obtained). A stock of IPV-containing vaccine is retained centrally for this purpose, and will be issued on the advice of the
Health Protection Agency (HPA) or HPS. IPV-containing vaccine may also need to be given immediately, after a case of paralytic poliomyelitis from wild
virus, to other individuals in the neighbourhood of the case, regardless of a previous history of immunisation against poliomyelitis.
In the event of a larger outbreak, it may be necessary to consider the use of the appropriate monovalent-OPV (m-OPV). Urgent advice should be sought from
the HPA (Colindale) who may be able to access a supply of appropriate m-OPV.
Why's that, you ask:
Until 2004, OPV was used for routine immunisation in the UK because of the continuing risk of importation of wild virus. Both OPV and IPV provide
excellent individual immunity. In addition, OPV provides community benefit as contacts of recently immunised children could be protected through
acquisition of vaccine virus (Ramsay et al., 1994a).
OPV also promotes antibody formation in the gut, providing local resistance to subsequent infection with wild poliomyelitis virus. This reduces the frequency of
symptomless excretion of wild viruses. The risks of wild polio virus being imported and the benefits of OPV need to be balanced against the risks of
VAPP from OPV use and the efficacy of IPV. Since 2004, this balance favours the use of inactivated polio vaccine
Also, because of the success of the seatbelt campaign, more people are KSI in vehicles while wearing seatbelts than not - makes you think
It might be helpful to link to the page you’re referring to then we’re all, erm, on the same page. It’s hard to discuss something I haven’t read.
Link above (theotherjonv found and read it) but here is the one.
Well, you seem to have found it out just fine?
Have I? I got told some dates the UK switched.. no references etc.
As I don't live in London and my child isn't being offered the vaccine I don't feel inclined to go looking further and it doesn't affect you so why would you.
You’ve kinda answered your own question here. The info on gov.uk has to be accessible, it has to be presented in a manner that can readily be understood by everyone including the ‘thickies’. There’s always going to have to be a compromise here. You’re looking at bitesize information and expecting PubMed.
I'm not asking for pubmed, I'm not even asking for the level of SciShow (aimed at kids) I'm just asking that it is correct and no self contradictions and omissions.
i.e. lets say we (you and I) have a similar low but above average (median) understanding of this specific subject and logical reasoning ability. We are of a not dis-similar age and got given "the cube at school" (quite possibly by the same nurse)
Polio is an infection caused by a virus that attacks the nervous system – it can cause permanent paralysis of muscles. Before the polio vaccine was introduced, there were as many as 8,000 cases of polio in the UK in epidemic years.
Because of the success of the polio vaccination programme, there have been no cases of natural polio infection in the UK for over 30 years (the last case was in 1984) and polio was eradicated from the whole of Europe in 2003.
So before this thread did you know what "there have been no cases of natural polio infection in the UK for over 30 years" means? (That means 100% are due to (oral) vaccinations) but they omit to say that.
Either way for your average parent what does "no natural cases" mean?
It's a can of worms statement .. it's actually unneeded but if it is put in it should be qualified.
You don't have kids being offered it so you probably pay no heed... I probably wouldn't have had I not seen the SciShow (linked above) .. HOWEVER consider for a moment parents who do have kids questioning what that means.
Requote:
Well, you seem to have found it out just fine?
So assuming the information on the thread is accurate ... (not saying its not) I effectively randomly found out on a bike forum... do you honestly think that's how it should be???
I might just as easily found out the "facts" on an anti-vax site.
IMHO this part is also telling... like someone got told to put marketing spin .. not just give the facts and information and had a list of "things to mention" and "things not to mention"
Because of the success of the polio vaccination programme
This whole part is again un-needed and pure marketing drivel BUT if they want to open the can of worms they need to be accurate and comprehensive not just say the bits sound good.
It's a mix of stuff didn't need to be said and stuff that is missing and that hardly inspires confidence to me.
Even not just saying "your child will be given an injection" is left vague .. like that's on the list of "don't mention" and yes I can see perhaps that will put some people off but that's the truth so they need to live with it.
Wow – that’s worthy of an “I struggle with long sentences” if ever
Typical echo chamber making personal attacks to drive someone away
TBH it's the amount of words which you are posting that's driving me away.
Googling "how many cases of oral vaccine causing polio in the uk" led me to:
Vaccine Knowledge - Polio
which states
"Until 2004, the vaccine used in the UK was a live attenuated (weakened) oral polio vaccine (OPV). In a small number of cases this vaccine actually caused polio itself (30 cases in UK between 1985 and 2002). Although the disease had been eradicated in the UK, it remained endemic in many countries, so there was a risk it could be reintroduced to the UK through travel and immigration.
By 2004, vaccination had eradicated polio from all but a few countries worldwide, and the UK was able to switch over to the inactivated (killed) polio vaccine, which does not contain any live viruses and cannot cause the disease itself".
It doesn't mention how many doses were given between 1985 and 2002 or how serious the 30 cases were.
ernielynch
TBH it’s the amount of words which you are posting that’s driving me away.
You won't want to read all of this then
https://history.nasa.gov/columbia/CAIB.html
Summary here
slowoldman
Googling “how many cases of oral vaccine causing polio in the uk” led me to:
Which is all very interesting (now the can of worms is open). I'll probably read just out of interest after my ride.
My point though had nothing to do with polio (or even vaccinations per se) rather how poor and misleading information on what are considered "authoritative sites" drive people to google and some will fall on anti-vax (in this case) sites rather than Oxford Uni.
You won’t want to read all of this then
No you are right..... how did you guess?
Even though you tantalised me with talk of 'significant overprediction of penetration'.
‘significant overprediction of penetration’.
Story of my life.