Talk:COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and hesitancy

Antibody dependent enhancement

New information suggests ADE can in fact occur with SARS-cov2 depending on antibody levels and more so with variants such as omicron (pre-booster) See Nature article from September 2022

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-19993-w

Newer omicron variants in last few months( autumn 2022) have more immune escape and are not well-covered by the recent booster , which theoretically could make ADE more of a problem.

For reference, i am a Harvard and Yale trained MD, and i am vaccinated x3 but chose not to get the recent booster as this new information came out. I have never stopped masking with N95. I am not anti-vax or COVID-denier. I am interested in the full truth, which I believe to be that the vaccine has been important but is not enough, and our reliance on it and abandonment of NPIs such as masks will be our downfall.

Meanwhile there is another error in the article: “when infected by a second closely-related virus, due to a unique and rare reaction with proteins on the surface of the second virus.[60][61] ADE has been observed in vitro and in animal studies with many different viruses that do not display ADE in humans.” This quote is misleading and makes it sound like there is no ADE in humans. On the contrary. ADE is not that rare, there are notable viruses that employ it (consider dengue). Just read the Wikipedia page on ADE, for example. Also a “second closely related virus” is misleading. Sometimes (as with dengue), it is the SAME virus, but with a mutation— in other words a variant. And COVID produces NUMEROUS variants. An antibody that fit the original variant well, but now, because of viral mutations, fits the newer variant less well, is a prime candidate to perform ADE.

So I am not taking a position on the vaccine being good Or bad. I would simply like to see the full updated truth here rather than the current post which implies the whole ADE discussion is an irrelevant non-issue. It’s not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirbyJan (talk • contribs) 22:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The new paper is not a reliable source; see WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Why not? Because it is a primary source, as opposed to secondary or tertiary? DonaldPayne (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. And it's also in a slightly iffy journal to compound issues. Bon courage (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The journal Nature is "slightly iffy"? The journal that published the seminal paper on monocolonal antibodies in the 1970s? What absolute nonsense. 204.145.225.74 (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe take a closer look in which journal at was published, not the url of this link. Scientific Reports Cannolis (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

"government/experts said the vaccinated can't get covid"

One of the most common current examples of disinformation on covid on social media and elsewhere is the claim that the government or medical or pharmaceutical experts lied about the effectiveness of the vaccines in preventing infection and transmission. I couldn't find any info on this disinformation in this article or in the one on transmission (and not much elsewhere online). Instead, i found and corrected disinformation in that article's section on effectiveness that wasn't noticed and/or reverted despite being an edit from more than 3 months ago by an unregistered editor. We need more effective patrolling of that and this article and others on covid.

In the past there were plenty of headlines by journalists and other laypeople similar to It's official: Vaccinated people don't spread COVID-19 (behind a paywall, so perhaps only the title is so misleading) that did accidentally or sloppily spread incorrect or exaggerated enthusiasm about effectiveness in preventing infection and transmission (during the first vaccinations), but experts were almost always careful and reported actual scientific knowledge correctly based on studies like https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm7013e3_w , which reported 90% effectiveness, at least for the first variants.

I spent quite a bit of time searching on WP and elsewhere online, but Google search results are mostly about the disinformation about the related but very different issue consisting of the naively or deviously claimed dishonesty of experts concerning the vaccines not being tested for transmission reduction before mass vaccination. I do remember reading that the director of the CDC talked about reduction of infection and transmission in a too optimistic way and in wording that was too absolute and that the CDC had to correct those claims. I found a source for that sloppiness, but probably other experts were sloppy too, so we need to report on those too to help explain where the misinformation and later disinformation came from. We also need to report on similar sloppy exaggerations of infection/transmission reduction by Biden and other government officials.

I'm adding this probably not quotable article about the slow or non-existent public education campaigns to counteract antivaccination and antigovernment propaganda. This info seems to also be missing here. --Espoo (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I came here also looking for this information, and was surprised not to see any of the misinformation about the effectiveness of the vaccines in the article. This is a key point now looking back at many of the mandates and their impact on civil liberties. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The majority of public consensus about the protection the vaccine would supposedly provide was delivered ad nauseam via the various dominant 24 hour news networks. Fauci, Biden, other officials as well as every news anchor spoke at length about how the vaccine would “stop the spread,” “Make transmission impossible” and “prevent you from giving covid to others” - the fact that you searched Google & WP and somehow found nothing, yet are for some reason unable or unwilling to document information from any not-yet-dead mediums like TV News (as opposed to print/e-journalism, which immediately remove and revise outdated propaganda without any trace or consequences) is disturbing and baffling. 2607:FB91:51B:C32E:D5F9:62A8:B44:696A (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

ANd what did the doctors say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Many "journalists", the CDC, & Anthony Fauci claimed that the vaccine stopped the spread of the virus and never retracted those statements or issued corrections. Many of these reports are still active on their original official accounts

So?Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

So? Who would you be protecting? I can add multiple sources where Joe Biden, President of The United States, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases also the chief medical advisor to the president of the United States from 2021 to 2022, along with numerous journalists, celebrities, and others that spread misinformation about the vaccine and the virus itself. Please explain how that is not relevant. Is it not the point to show unbiased information about people from different sides of the issue being incorrect or made claims that misled the public. In particular by using that false information to coerce people into taking a vaccine they were hesitant about putting in their body. 107.195.140.198 (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow was in the Biden administration? Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That is what you choose to take from my comment? I said the President of The United States, The Vice President of the United States, his Chief Medical Advisor during the pandemic, The Center for disease Control in addition to other "journalists" and celebrities. To ignore that is in bad faith which seems to be the direction Wikipedia is going seeing that Trump and his comments, as they should be, are always mentioned in Wikipedia articles. What makes Biden, his administration, and many others exempt from scrutiny? The people should be help accountable for creating a false narrative in order to influence public opinion and mislead the public regarding their own health decisions. It is part of the history of the pandemic to show that propaganda from the United States government was used and spread through traditional media and social media. Since I am unable to add anything referring to this subject it seems there is leaning control over Wikipedia content to decide what information is or is not important. Who is in control of these COVID-19 pages deciding what people show know? Splankton (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it is what I took from the source provided. And wp:agf, the reason this can't be done is this is about misinformation, not incorrect information. In other words, people not giving out the best medical advice available, but giving out information not based upon the best scientific advice at the time. Moreover, people who continue to give out this information, rather than correcting themselves, long after it is proven false. Slatersteven (talk) 08:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the sources are still available with no retractions or level of accountability is misinformation. All of these people were culpable, and without updated sources, can still be used as sources. They, like others accused, preyed on the lack of knowledge of non-professionals to push their agenda and force people (vaccine mandates) to believe their information. They were wrong and need to be held accountable or the same people, organizations, and parties will repeat the behavior. They attacked, ridiculed, and shamed millions of people. Lumped concerned citizens in with anit-vaxx. Something should be said in any of these articles that, yes, the so called moral compass of the media and progressives were wrong for all of these actions and there is little evidence for atonement. Without it documented, these same people can use the same tactics again and allow history to repeat itself. Splankton (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that a lot of disinformation and nothing but that has been added to my OP. (I wasn't informed about these comments because someone had removed the subtitle formatting.) It seems that none of these commenters know or want to know the facts about COVID transmission reduction due to vaccines as reported in Transmission_of_COVID-19#Effect_of_vaccination. --Espoo (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

"a growing body of evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines also reduce asymptomatic infection and transmission" as chains of transmission are interrupted by vaccines. While fully vaccinated people can still become infected and potentially transmit the virus to others (particularly in areas of widespread community transmission), they do so at a much lower rate than unvaccinated people. The primary cause of continued spread of COVID-19 is transmission between unvaccinated people.

References

Evidence to disprove the possibility of a worldwide conspiracy

Does this page contain enough body of sources to ensure that it is near-impossible to mastermind a conspiracy of injecting the world population with harmful material on COVID-19 vaccines? It would strengthen the point of view represented in this article that everyone from those who produce these vaccines to those who examine them are reliable. What could constitute a good enough proof that nobody in world is strong enough to orchestrate such thing? Yuzerneim (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

No this article does don't "contain enough body of sources to ensure that it is near-impossible to mastermind a conspiracy of injecting the world population with harmful material on COVID-19 vaccines" as we are not trying to do this (nor can we as we can't disprove something done in secret).

Yes we do use only wp:rs.

You can't prove or disprove a conspiracy theory, but the onus would be on those wishing to prove it, After all can you prove you are not a small cat that just got lucky on the keyboard? Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

1- You can however at least prove whether such thing is practically possible.

2- Also the second statement was not a question regarding "what sources you use", but it was just that, a statement, a piece of honest opinion.

3- Last but not least, you can say that I am not a cat based on the fact that cats are practically incapable of using a keyboard, and prove that they are indeed not, but can we do the same with questions regarding the vaccine safety? What should you say had someone asked whether are the people behind the vaccination process capable of such conspiracy? Yuzerneim (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Prove what is practically possible that Wikipedia ensures that a "conspiracy of injecting the world population with harmful material on COVID-19 vaccines can't be carried out"?, that is not wikipedias job.

This talk page is for discussing ways to improve the article, not for your opinions of it (or the sources).

I would say, look at the actual medical evidence as published in peer-reviewed medical journals. As has been said about many many conspiracies (and going back Rr}we GOP by what RS say, not some bloke on the internet. My cat point is to illustrate the problem, you can't "prove" something that by its nature has no proof to start with.

Thus WP:ONUS is on you to poove you have a valid point, not for us to prove you do not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd talk about this a bit further but as now I realise that ONUS stuff, I see no point and therefore I cease it here. For your information, I wanted to know, not to convince. Have a nice day, stranger. Yuzerneim (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Mischievous use of the term "anti-vaxxer"

It is mischievous and opportunistic to describe all people opposed to the covid vaccine as "Anti-vaxxers". It is the same as claiming that all people who don't like icecream are "anti-sugar". 41.116.162.241 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

We go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding graphic re death rates (Trump vs non-Trump counties)

After the December 2020 introduction of COVID vaccines, a partisan gap in death rates developed, indicating the effects of vaccine skepticism. As of March 2024, more than 30 percent of Republicans had not received a Covid vaccine, compared with less than 10 percent of Democrats.
— Source: Leonhardt, David (March 11, 2024). "The Fourth Anniversary of the Covid Pandemic". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 11, 2024. "Data excludes Alaska. Sources: C.D.C. Wonder; Edison Research. (Chart) By The New York Times. Source credits chart to Ashley Wu.

• @Slatersteven: I think it's appropriate to add to this article. Your first objection related to sourcing, for which I believe NYTimes and its credited primary sources are more than adequate. Your second assertion was that "This is abvout misinformation, not vacinatiojn rates", which is contrary to the very title of the article: both misinformation (of which Trump is champion) and hesitancy (which is what the graphic is about). The sourced graphic and its sourced caption capture in stunning style, an important relation between Trump, vaccine hesitancy, and deaths. Slatersteven, please reconsider. Others, please weigh in. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• It also looks like it violates NPOV as this is using us to make a political point it seems to be. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Your objections have gone from (1) sourcing^{(NYTimes, CDC)} to (2) relevance to this article^{(includes hesitancy)}. How can you now claim (3) the graphic itself "makes a political point"? The graphic presents reliably sourced facts concerning vaccine hesitancy based on an objective metric. Should Wikipedians hide neutrally presented facts just because readers may independently perceive they have political implications? No. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Because this is not an edit summary, that has to be brief, So I am now available to articulate other concerns. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I have specifically dealt with (refuted) each and every one of your concerns in detail. You have not replied to the substance of what I have written. Unless you have substantive reasoning to present, I will replace the graphic. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

And I do not accept some of your reasoning, it is a factoid without context, that in fact draws (but implies) no conclusions. As such I think it has no place here as it is wp:undue, maybe its true, so what? what does it tell us, nothing? I have had my say, it is time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

"It tells us" through concrete fact that vaccine hesitancy, which can be based on party affiliation, kills. "So what"? That's what. (P.S. One graphic in a 130KByte article is not WP:UNDUE.) And you still have not responded to my arguments other than to say you don't accept "some" of them. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• It will appear to be politically motivated without an RS to tie it to new or existing text. CurryCity (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

As recited in the caption: the NYTimes/CDC reliable source specifically ties the death rate disparity to differences in voting. Facts are facts; facts are not what you subjectively hypothesize to be "politically motivated". —RCraig09 (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Was the caption there originally? CurryCity (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@CurryCity: Yes: diff. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't see it at the time. Let me read the article. CurryCity (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@CurryCity: If you have trouble accessing NYTimes, try the archive link. —RCraig09 (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Alarm at the spread of anti-vaxx is not politically motivated, but rather scientifically motivated. Anyone who cares about public health, whatever their politics, is motivated to want Wikipedia to give due coverage to this dangerous phenomenon. When I first saw the graph in the NY Times, I was struck not by the higher death rate in Trump counties (which could have other explanations, such as poorer health care in rural areas or lower incomes of Trump voters), but rather the fact that the death rate had been equal or higher in the non-Trump counties before vaccines were available. At the very beginning of the pandemic most deaths were in Democratic counties, because Covid first hit the U.S. in coastal cities such as New York, Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. It was vaccines that caused this to change so dramatically.

In answer to so what? what does it tell us?, it tells us a lot. (1) Anti-science views have fatal consequences. (2) Vaccines do reduce the number of deaths by a huge number. (3) Trump actually did something praiseworthy as President, namely Operation Warpspeed that resulted in the production of life-saving vaccines with unprecedented speed. It's sad and ironic that the refusal of many of his followers to accept this as a great accomplishment has led to their death from the disease. NightHeron (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

All I said was that this would appear politically motivated without adjustment. This still does slightly because the emphasis of the chart is on Trump vote, not misinformation and hesitancy, versus deaths. CurryCity (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Subjective words like "appear" and "emphasis" and "motivation" are not objective reasons to oppose content. The facts are the facts, presented in the NYTimes reference as a whole (including its text) and as reflected in the caption here. What "adjustment" would you be talking about, without straying from what the reference shows and states? —RCraig09 (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The chart just appears to me politically motivated, so I'm concerned it would be controversial to other editors as well, but it's up to you if you want to add it. CurryCity (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Pursuant to NightHeron's 16 March post, I've just added "First vaccine availability" to the chart from NYTimes source. You may have to by-pass your cache to see the change. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The Morning, an NYTimes newsletter, makes no mention of misinformation and no direct link between Trump and vaccine hesitancy. It says, "30 percent of self-identified Republicans have not received a Covid vaccine shot, compared with less than 10 percent of Democrats. You can see the tragic effects of vaccine skepticism in this chart, by my colleague Ashley Wu, which compares the death rates in red and blue counties." I checked CDC Wonder but found no easy way to extract deaths by counties' Trump votes. NYTimes might have crossed CDC data with voting data in order to create the chart. Is it implying Trump caused the hesitancy, or is % vote just an indicator for red/Republican? There is a possibility that this could be original research and copyright violation, NightHeron, Slatersteven? CurryCity (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The policy WP:OR concerns original research by Wikipedia editors, which is not allowed, and obviously does not forbid original research by our sources, in this case the NY Times and the people their journalists consulted. We're not allowed to put 2 and 2 together on our own, but we can cite the NY Times' conclusions from the data. And the phrase "you can see the tragic effects of vaccine hesitancy" seems to be a pretty direct mention of vaccine misinformation among Republicans. NightHeron (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The NYTimes chart mentions Trump only in the legend and not nearly as prominently as this chart does. I would leave Trump vote share in the legend because they only serve as indicators for red/Republican. Is the chart fair use then since it is not strictly just CDC data? The NYTimes could be ok with having the chart on Wikipedia with or without the modified labels. CurryCity (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

— Under copyright, information (data) is generally not subject to protection; it is specific expressions of data that can be protected. "It took a lot of work" (like correlating CDC data to corresponding voter data) does not by itself justify copyright protection. In creating the chart, I used Inkscape to locate particular data points and used the Bezier curve tool to arrive at smoothed curves for presentation. Here, the chance of copyright infringement is nil (for this and thousands+ of other charts on Wikipedia).

— Definitely, it's OK for a source (NYTimes) to WP:SYNthesize WP:ORIGINAL research. True, we editors should not, but that isn't happening here.

— Labels/legends: In this case, I was forced to make "Trump votes" more dominant because the NYTimes chart only mentioned it in a legend above the chart, which made it harder to visually appreciate what the different curves meant. As ~always, I'm open to specific suggestions for improving the chart's presentation, but the current presentation is best to quickly and directly convey what the five traces mean. My textual caption echoes the NYTimes reference to connect Trump votes to the broader Republican party and vax hesitancy.

— Summary: Given CurryCity's 09:00 post, above, it looks like it's Slatersteven is the only one opposed to including the chart, and I have soundly answered each and every one of his meandering objections. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)