James Tour: Can The COVID Vaccine Change Your DNA?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Faizal_Ali

Hopefully Tour will take that as a wake up call of how thoroughly he has bedded himself down with the science deniers.

A hope so remote a possibility as this is anathema to logic and reason.

[Tim]

@Dan_Eastwood

This might explain why Tour was so guarded in recommending vaccination - he knew how his audience was going to respond.

Wouldn’t that mean admitting to himself that his target audience are paranoid conspiracy theorists?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Tim

@Dan_Eastwood

This might explain why Tour was so guarded in recommending vaccination - he knew how his audience was going to respond.

Wouldn’t that mean admitting to himself that his target audience

It would just mean acknowledging that a portion of his audience is conspiracy theorists, and he does just this in the video. That’s why the video is important, in that he is standing up to a portion of his own base.

[Joe_Felsenstein]

He still placed the emphasis on “individual choice” and did not do any rough calculation of the risks of the vaccine versus the risks of Covid-19. And he indicated that he would not advocate vaccination of anyone under 18. The result was to make the vaccine sound risky. I do think that he was trying to oppose vaccination lunacy, but in view of the fraction of vehement anti-vaxers in his base audience he felt constrained from speaking more clearly and forcibly.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Joe_Felsenstein

The result was to make the vaccine sound risky. I do think that he was trying to oppose vaccination lunacy, but in view of the fraction of vehement anti-vaxers in his base audience he felt constrained from speaking more clearly and forcibly.

Which is most apparent when compared to his videos about abiogenesis, where is almost literally frothing at the mouth in his rage. Of course, that approach might work better when people already agree with you, as opposed to when you are trying to change their minds.

Full credit to him for accepting some of the responsibility that comes with being seen as a scientific authority, in any event. But if the comments section is any indicator, he is on a Quixotic quest here.

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

In my view, this video will do a great deal of good, reaching a group many scientists can’t.

Francis Collins, head of the NIH, is very open about his Christian faith. I am wondering if he has made any inroads.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Joe_Felsenstein

I do think that he was trying to oppose vaccination lunacy, but in view of the fraction of vehement anti-vaxers in his base audience he felt constrained from speaking more clearly and forcibly.

True.

I texted him about it to thank him for saying something pro vaccine. He responded that several people reached out saying his comments gave them the confidence to take the vaccine.

Whatever his private reasoning, or public delivery, this was an example of a “soft sell.” And that works better than “hard sells” in conflicted domains.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@T_aquaticus

Francis Collins, head of the NIH, is very open about his Christian faith. I am wondering if he has made any inroads.

Not in the communities in which Jim is trusted.

A lot of evangelicals like Collins and think he is a net positive in the public sphere, but at the same time think he is out of touch with the details and their theological concerns. He is the among the last scientists people expect to point out any overreach by mainstream science.

I also see him as an important public figure, with a generally positive impact. But his opinion on the particulars does not carry much weight when substantive disagreement arises, as is the case here. Appeals to Collins function essentially as appeals authority, which are contraindicated in science communication.

It’s notable that all the things working in his favor regarding evangelicals and evolution have almost no value regarding vaccines. So, no, I doubt there will be any difference between, for example, Fauci and Collins in making inroads regarding the vaccine.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Another way to put this…

Regarding evolution, one salient question: can a faithful Christian affirm evolution and be a respected member of the scientific community? Collins demonstrates in spades that the answer is “yes,” whether or not he is right on many of the particulars.

Regarding vaccines that is not even remotely the question. No one seriously doubts that one can be a faithful Christian and take the vaccine.

Instead the salient question is: can we trust the government and pharma enough to take the vaccines and tune out the avalanche of information claiming they are unsafe?

On this question, Collins has zero credibility more than any other scientist at the NIH and the CDC. He has never argued against a mainstream position and has always defended consensus positions. So his opinion on the vaccine (which, for the record, I agree with entirely) doesn’t count for much. There is no reason to think it will matter among evangelicals (or any one else) more than will Fauci’s opinion.

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

Instead the salient question is: can we trust the government and pharma enough to take the vaccines and tune out the avalanche of information claiming they are unsafe?

I do think that is a factor. People who are already distrustful of government and “elites” find stories that reinforce those emotions. In other words, they find the echo chamber they are comfortable in.

One interesting story is told by someone who survived the Parkland school shooting. The survivor’s father got sucked into the black hole of misinformation, and even went on to accuse his own son, the survivor of a school shooting, of being part of a false flag conspiracy.

As is true for many who fell down the QAnon rabbit hole in recent years, Bill’s dad’s descent coincided with the pandemic.

“It started a couple months into the pandemic with the whole anti-lockdown protests,” Bill said. “His feelings were so strong it turned into facts for him. So if he didn’t like having to wear masks it wouldn’t matter what doctors or scientists said. Anything that contradicted his feelings was wrong. So he turned to the internet to find like-minded people which led him to QAnon.”
I’m a Parkland Shooting Survivor. QAnon Convinced My Dad It Was All a Hoax.

@swamidass

On this question, Collins has zero credibility more than any other scientist at the NIH and the CDC. He has never argued against a mainstream position and has always defended consensus positions. So his opinion on the vaccine (which, for the record, I agree with entirely) doesn’t count for much. There is no reason to think it will matter among evangelicals (or any one else) more than will Fauci’s opinion.

That makes a lot of sense. A scientific iconoclast carries more influence in anti-vax circles than somebody from the establishment.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

You don’t have to be an iconoclast like Tour. Any one with a history of standing against a mainstream position (ideally but not necessarily being correct in the end), and credibly looking into the details of the vaccine will have more credibility.

Of course, almost everyone’s reach will be lower than the NIH director, but if we care about persuading people on the vaccine, we should amplify the reach of videos like this one by Tour. Ultimately I think they have far more effect per view than announcements by the establishment (even though I agree with the establishment on the vaccine!).

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@evograd

I wonder if a lot of laypeople imagine that the viral mRNA in the vaccine will somehow alter “their genome”, in the sense that somehow their unique genome will be changed, either by altering the DNA in all their cells or changing the “master copy” that they might imagine they have somewhere.

Yes, I think they do imagine that.

@evograd

I don’t know if everyone grasps that their genome isn’t this one single thing that can be altogether changed.

No, everyone definitely doesn’t grasp that. I would not have a year ago.

I was explaining in a chat with a friend today why flu and covid vaccines don’t confer lifetime immunity and why MMR vaccines are considered to. I had to look up the science behind why it is the case with MMR but was guessing it had something to do with how it does or could evolve (and I guessed correctly as far as the article I found). I had also explained to him I’ve learned a lot about viral evolution in the last year. After I explained that (among other things about the little I know about mRNA vaccines and how they compare to others), he said something about maybe changing his mind in the future about getting the vaccine. To me, that was a big deal. Honestly I think we could do a great deal of good by teaching basic science about viral evolution instead of origins, because it would have a great effect on our health.

It bugs me yet that differing, yet qualified scientific views make understanding basics about Covid more confusing for the public - for example, do we or can we know what kind of mutations are possible, how much the vaccine affects natural selection of mutations, etc. I don’t see a consensus on this and those medical characters with fringe vaccination or masking views go viral when they start the conversation on this because they sound knowledgeable and confident about their scientific opinions.

Also, I think the public is very confused on the science of how vaccines work and what the end goal is, as the “solution” to covid keeps changing. I explained to my friend that I think we’ll be chasing Covid evolution with vaccines for a while until it becomes less dangerous or more people get immunity. But I don’t know if that is even completely correct and do scientists even know? The people I’m talking to are very tired of the variant fear-mongering OR do just generally trust the media/CDC. I’m kind of in the both/and/neither category.

Would be nice if there actually seemed to be scientific consensus on what kind of Covid evolution is possible with or without vaccines…there doesn’t seem to be…sorry this rant of a paragraph is off-topic, but I wanted to explain what I’m hearing from others regarding vaccine hesitancy…

[Tim]

@swamidass

It would just mean acknowledging that a portion of his audience is conspiracy theorists, and he does just this in the video. That’s why the video is important, in that he is standing up to a portion of his own base.

My implication was that it would mean acknowledging that a significant proportion of his regular viewership were conspiracy theorists (if the proportion weren’t significant, he would not feel the need to cater to them).

I would think that such an insight would make most scientists pause, and wonder what they are doing to attract such an element.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@thoughtful

Would be nice if there actually seemed to be scientific consensus on what kind of Covid evolution is possible with or without vaccines…there doesn’t seem to be…sorry this rant of a paragraph is off-topic, but I wanted to explain what I’m hearing from others regarding vaccine hesitancy…

Science follows the data.

As the data changes, the scientific assessment will change.

[T_aquaticus]

@thoughtful

It bugs me yet that differing, yet qualified scientific views make understanding basics about Covid more confusing for the public - for example, do we or can we know what kind of mutations are possible, how much the vaccine affects natural selection of mutations, etc. I don’t see a consensus on this and those medical characters with fringe vaccination or masking views go viral when they start the conversation on this because they sound knowledgeable and confident about their scientific opinions.

Scientists don’t know what direction viral evolution will take. However, we do know that there are strong selective pressures that push the virus towards overcoming existing immunity which is cause for concern. I would suspect that existing immunity will be enough to reduce the severity of infections from future strains of the virus, even if it doesn’t stop infections altogether.

@thoughtful

Also, I think the public is very confused on the science of how vaccines work and what the end goal is, as the “solution” to covid keeps changing. I explained to my friend that I think we’ll be chasing Covid evolution with vaccines for a while until it becomes less dangerous or more people get immunity. But I don’t know if that is even completely correct and do scientists even know? The people I’m talking to are very tired of the variant fear-mongering OR do just generally trust the media/CDC. I’m kind of in the both/and/neither category.

COVID vaccines will be adapted to new strains of the virus, just as we do with flu vaccines now. The amazing part is that there can be a quick turnaround thanks to the mRNA vaccine technology that has finally reached maturity.

@thoughtful

The people I’m talking to are very tired of the variant fear-mongering OR do just generally trust the media/CDC. I’m kind of in the both/and/neither category.

Would they trust the media/CDC more if they suppressed the fact that the Delta variant is more transmissible?

@thoughtful

Would be nice if there actually seemed to be scientific consensus on what kind of Covid evolution is possible with or without vaccines…there doesn’t seem to be…sorry this rant of a paragraph is off-topic, but I wanted to explain what I’m hearing from others regarding vaccine hesitancy…

Anything is possible. It is possible that the virus evolves to be less virulent so that it causes something like the common cold, which is what many other coronaviruses do. It is also possible that it becomes more virulent and causes much more severe infections. There is simply no way to know. The best we can do is prepare the scientific and corporate sectors for quick detection of problematic variants and streamline vaccine production.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@thoughtful

Also, I think the public is very confused on the science of how vaccines work and what the end goal is, as the “solution” to covid keeps changing. I explained to my friend that I think we’ll be chasing Covid evolution with vaccines for a while until it becomes less dangerous or more people get immunity. But I don’t know if that is even completely correct and do scientists even know? The people I’m talking to are very tired of the variant fear-mongering OR do just generally trust the media/CDC. I’m kind of in the both/and/neither category.

I understand your frustrations, and from the layperson’s perspective it really does seem like it’s all just guessing by innumerable conflicting opinions among self-declared experts. When it comes to who is or isn’t actually a qualified expert, who to trust, and how science really works and whether or to what extend there is a sensible scientific consensus on some topic, rarely do laypeople really understand “what goes on under the hood” of science.

This is exacerbated to extreme levels by the clickbait culture that has grown out of social media and internet news reporting in general. It seems nobody in journalism have any qualms sticking a microphone in the face of anyone who can say they have a half-way relevant-sounding PhD and insists “everything we’re doing is wrong”.

I know people in both healthcare and immunology wanting to literally pull their own hair off their scalps in frustration that the media has, yet again, stuffed some crackpot’s oral cavity full of amplifiers and megaphones because his PhD in molecular biology involved something with immunology, and he’s all too happy insisting everyone else is wrong. There’s this guy (IIRC) from Roskilde University who has basically been a non-stop source of total bullshit. And they drag out this fossil of an individual every time someone from some public health institution is quoted for the rationale behind new guidelines or w/e.

And I think to myself, how are people supposed to know that this guy is a crank? To think of all the things that would have to be explained and detailed to bring someone up to speed, not just on what is or isn’t a fact, but also this whole thing about who is or isn’t an expert, what a scientific concensus is, where something was published (what are predatory journals?). They have no hope of being able to identify all the problems with the things he says, and he’s saying all the right technical-sounding and scary things. So they get this guy on screen, then put him up against some other (reasonably frustated) expert, and you just get this impression that you’re dealing with a he-said-she-said between two equally qualified and substantiated experts.

And I have to conclude either the journalists themselves are also ignorant, or simply don’t care and are in some ways just trying to stir up the hornet’s nest for more clicks and attention.

It’s obscene.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Incidentally @dsterncardinale did this nice and informative video on the Delta variant, and general virus evolution very apposite to this topic of vaccination strategies:

Evolution Explains: The Delta Variant

[dsterncardinale]

Wow those comments are bananas.

[T_aquaticus]

@Rumraket

And I have to conclude either the journalists themselves are also ignorant, or simply don’t care and are in some ways just trying to stir up the hornet’s nest for more clicks and attention.

Sadly, journalists can advance their careers by prioritizing drama over fact. Ratings and readership matter more than truth, especially when you have an audience that is looking for someone to confirm their beliefs instead of confront them with inconvenient facts.

Good science journalists are hard to find nowadays. Wish there were more of them, and I wish they had a more prominent position in media organizations. For example, if Carl Zimmer were one of the top journo’s we would definitely be in a better place. I have yet to read a Zimmer article I didn’t approve of.

[Michelle (Michelle Ols)]

@T_aquaticus

Francis Collins, head of the NIH, is very open about his Christian faith. I am wondering if he has made any inroads.

People in conservative Christian circles do not listen to Francis Collins. I’m aware of a group of church elders who discuss BioLogos articles as examples of bad theology. So I do not appeal to Collins when reaching out to conservative Christians about science

Where I point to Francis Collins is among my scientist friends, to explain how great scientists can have strong faith, that science and faith can be compatible. Because of our current culture, many people seem to just assume out of hand that all of the science we know know means that there is no reason for faith