Interview with Jonathan Howard *Audio*
Added 2023-06-07 03:45:43 +0000 UTCNo video this time.
We interview Dr. Jonathan Howard on the topic of covid contrarians, anti-vaxx rhetoric, and all things pandemic-y.
Jonathan is a good follow on Twitter and has an extremely topical book titled:
"We Want Them Infected: How the failed quest for herd immunity led doctors to embrace the anti-vaccine movement and blinded Americans to the threat of COVID"
You can find a lot of his writing here: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/
Comments
Will Offit, Prasad, Z-guy, et. al. be offered a guru right of reply?
James Lohner
2023-06-29 12:01:59 +0000 UTCto me that sounds like taking a fairly strong position on school closures. I’m not familiar with his work as a whole, just basing it off of this short convo
Taylor Geisler
2023-06-28 00:00:11 +0000 UTCYep I did hear him say that, but In the same conversation he said (or implied) that not doing lockdowns was using kids as human shields
Taylor Geisler
2023-06-27 23:56:45 +0000 UTCYeah, the context of a global pandemic that killed over a million Americans matters as there will inevitably be damage. I'd suspect that the kids who lost parents are also going to be severely impacted over the long term.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-06-26 21:56:37 +0000 UTCI'm not sure you listened to what he said that closely, given he indicated he did not actually have a recommendation regarding the length of school closures.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-06-26 21:17:05 +0000 UTCTLDR: Covid lockdowns erased 50 years of progress in Math and Reading ability in American 8th graders.
Taylor Geisler
2023-06-24 14:42:51 +0000 UTCAll this data is published by the US govt. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/highlights/ltt/2023/
Taylor Geisler
2023-06-24 14:34:21 +0000 UTCLockdowns were the single largest setback to gender and racial equality in at least 50 years. This is the issue that liberals claim to care about most of all. “In mathematics, the 11-point score decrease for female students compared to the 7-point decrease for male students resulted in a widening of the Male−Female score gap in comparison to 2020. Also, the 13-point score decrease among Black students compared to the 6-point decrease among White students resulted in a widening of the White−Black score gap from 35 points in 2020 to 42 points in 2023.”
Taylor Geisler
2023-06-24 14:32:23 +0000 UTCSometimes when I listen to people like Johnathan I just feel like they must be living in a completely different world. Because of lockdowns, children’s ability to read and do math has plummeted, quality of life of basically everyone on earth has decreased significantly. Those costs when added up are much higher than 1 million elderly people dying, when you take a sober look at the facts, in my opinion. “Using children as human shields??” Children are the victims of school closures, not the beneficiaries
Taylor Geisler
2023-06-24 14:26:31 +0000 UTCGiven we know you can’t reach herd immunity by infection, and given that it became apparent that even with border closures, lockdowns, and quarantine, it was impossible to keep the virus out, it’s clear that focussed protection is pie in the sky fantasising. So, yeah, it’s fine to be dismissive of that. It’s flawed, and it will be dismissed as flawed.
Staunch Atheist
2023-06-11 20:32:23 +0000 UTC😅 No worries, yeh I think I wasn't clear enough in my argument. I was mostly commenting on the part when Matt questioned Johnathan: Matt: "I want to ask you your opinion in a nutshell as to how and why well educated people can become so deluded about things that would seem to have a clear cut evidentiary basis, Chris and I joke to each other that just highly educated people just get the skills to be wrong in more complicated ways, but what do you think?" To which, Johnathan replied "I don't have a great satisfactory answer, I mean, I think exactly what you said, that you kind of have to be smart to come up with some conspiracy theories. I think a lot of it just has to do with the sort of psychological need to feel different. if everyone is saying A, you have to say B." He added "So I think it's a little bit just about being different for the sake of being different, because nothing is more boring than saying you should vaccinate your children against measles, HPV, and polio." That, to me, felt dismissive. Johnathans own words, during the episodes, when asked his personal opinion in a nutshell. I feel like any listener who is sympathetic to the antivax sentiment for legitimate non-pseudoscientific reasons would feel a little dismissed there, but maybe I'm too sensitive. I really wasn't saying much more than that, except to lament a little that I was hoping there would be a deeper dive exploring those legitimate, non-pseudoscientific reasons driving such behaviour. P.S. A positive outcome of this comment thread is that it pushed me to order the book. I'm looking forward to it in general, but yeah, maybe it'll add some missing color to my impression of the episode discussion as well.
Desi
2023-06-08 08:11:28 +0000 UTCWe never did go for herd immunity. From the start it was always flatten the curve, wait for the vaccine. Protect as much as we can those at risk and recommendations that in many ways was followed which changed society a lot. During the same period I spent 1 month in Denmark for work. The biggest difference for me was that in Denmark I ate at a restaurant every day and that they in Denmark had testing and mask rules that was a joke.
Tobias nilsson
2023-06-08 04:01:27 +0000 UTCAh, I started reading the book today! I came to Patreon to listen to something while I did some housework, and, hey!, here’s Jonathan Howard again. Thank you. Thank you.
Jeanne H-B
2023-06-07 23:42:28 +0000 UTCAgreed!
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-06-07 23:21:03 +0000 UTCThe comment thread software on Patreon is terrible so it’s not a good place for discussion in general. You are free to say what you want but not without critical pushback. People aren’t silencing you for breaking taboos, they are just not agreeing with your analysis and arguments. I don’t think you’ve supported your argument well or represented the content accurately. You are free to feel otherwise. And again Jonathan, Matt, and numerous other people have not only investigated anti-vaxx sentiment, they’ve conducted research and published papers on it. The commentary offered doesn’t come from a lack of curiosity but a well informed perspective. The covid contrarians are highly connected with the traditional anti vaxx world and their arguments often boil down to more complex versions of what traditional anti vaxx advocates say. Anti vaccine sentiment isn’t rare, it’s been a historical constant.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-06-07 23:20:12 +0000 UTCI was talking about the episode content, not the book. And sure, feel free to ignore people advising on a topic they're not experts in. Or don't. I don't really care; that wasn't my point. My point was that for a discussion, which I thought was intended to discuss the anti-vax sentiment, I felt it dismissed the sentiment too quickly as "unscientific" and I think that is a shame. However, based on the above response from the Gurus, I see now that their intent wasn't to cover anti-vax sentiment in general, but instead, they wanted to focus on the few (regrettably not fewer) high-profile cases where people with large audiences were making scientific claims that are contradicted by evidence. In which case, as I said, fine. I missed that. But, while I begin to realize bringing it up is a big taboo here, I still think we only lose when we reduce the huge portion of the population with anti-vax sentiment as them simply not having their facts straight or being pseudoscientific or trusting some celebrity they shouldn't. I think in an increasingly globalized society legitimate epistemic, sociological, and moral pressures drive a lot of this behavior, and I think we need to understand these better if we want any solidarity whether that's pandemics, climate change, conscription, seatbelts, etc. But yeah fine, I'll get his book and read it if that's the entry fee for this discussion.
Desi
2023-06-07 17:28:50 +0000 UTCI don't think I'd call writing a very well researched and argued book 'dismissive'. Not to mention a career of carefully identifying trends in pseudoscience and misinformation. I'd sooner question the "truths", as you say, that antivax doctors push, especially those that make statements outside their area of expertise. Rather than relevant experts.
Matt
2023-06-07 16:21:22 +0000 UTCRight, but my comment was specifically about the episode's content, not about the literature in general. Maybe the intent of the episode was only to focus on those high-profile cases, in which case fine, but I don't think that gets to the heart of why most "anti-vax" folk hold their positions. In this specific episode, about which I wrote my comment, I was missing an explanation that didn't dismiss the view (for example, I consider it dismissive to strawman their position as "oh, it's because they believe in pseudoscience, so go check out work on why people believe in pseudoscience"). And also (though I don't really care because it wasn't my point at all) but didn't Jonathan explicitly say in the episode that one of the dudes was a cartoon villain? (bad person out to do bad) And I don't think I said anything about feelings deciding whether something has scientific evidence or not, but maybe I misunderstood that remark. But fair enough, it's hard to ever start a conversation on this topic without it becoming immediately divisive, probably, and understandably, because the stakes are so high and it has hurt so many people. It seems it's also unwelcome to discuss it here, which is fair enough.
Desi
2023-06-07 13:52:50 +0000 UTCProbably because Sweden is a famous example of a country that opted to pursue herd immunity? I also think he knows at least a little bit about the response. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/yes-schools-were-closed-in-sweden/
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-06-07 13:30:31 +0000 UTCWhat is and is not backed by scientific evidence is not determined by feelings. The contrarians profiled, as discussed, have been demonstrated repeatedly to be misrepresenting data. All of them have grown large media profiles and become pundits, all of them claim counter to the evidence that their positions have been vindicated. Jonathan’s position, rather clearly, is not that these are just bad people who are out to do bad. It’s that these are people who have been captured by biases and powerful incentives into promoting pseudoscience. Lots of people believe in lots of pseudoscience. There has been lots of work done on exploring how and why people hold such beliefs. Jonathan has been writing about the topic for over a decade. Maybe it’s worth checking out some of his papers and/or the general literature before declaring that people are just dismissing things without trying to understand. Honestly i think you should apply your own advice to your listening of what Jonathan is saying.
Christopher Kavanagh
2023-06-07 13:25:21 +0000 UTCWhat a fascinating interview! It is so astonishing that very smart doctors can be willing to mislead people for their own selfish purposes. Before this pandemic I wouldn’t have believed it was possible.
Lucy
2023-06-07 13:10:41 +0000 UTCfair enough 😅 I guess our dismissiveness sensitivity differs
Desi
2023-06-07 12:28:54 +0000 UTCReally cant say i found any of this dismissive.
Colin Fardey
2023-06-07 12:25:07 +0000 UTCWhy is he talking about Sweden? Not the first time and sounds like he knows nothing about us.
Tobias nilsson
2023-06-07 12:13:50 +0000 UTCIts a bit lacking in imagination when the best explanation of people holding a counter position is to accuse them of merely wanting to seem smart or contrarian, or reacting emotionally, no? I understand it's a highly politically charged topic and the stakes are so high, so maybe it's unsafe to give too much air-time for actually exploring why people think the way they do when it comes to policy backed by science (and whether those concerns are legitimate or not). But I'd love a genuine exploration the "antivax" position: - exploring the epistemic challenges involved in accepting "truths" told to us by experts - truths we aren't qualified to understand or verify ourselves, amidst a history of getting things wrong from time to time - the political issues of introducing any policy (backed by science, or otherwise) because it saves lives or reduces harm etc. This seems like a no brainer and it's often easy to sell, but a lot legitimate counter examples exist here too (too much power for a state, infringement of freedoms and rights, cultural norms etc) I dunno, I think we lose a lot by dismissing those that disagree with us like this, without genuinely and respectfully trying to understand their position. Especially when they're are huge portion of population.
Desi
2023-06-07 11:42:39 +0000 UTCThis topic reminds me of what the great HH and BW once said on the DH ."Go out and get your infection" .
Colin Fardey
2023-06-07 08:17:46 +0000 UTCJonathan is great!
Protagonist Science
2023-06-07 06:56:05 +0000 UTC
