Guest columnist Chris Matera encourages considering new data on mandatory boosters for Five College students, teachers, etc. (“With mandatory booster jabs, have the Five Colleges lost their way?” Jan 11). Graham Gal (“Let the experts opine about vaccine shots,” Jan 11) and Vandy Bollinger (“Cherry-picking stats is dangerous,” Jan 11) respond.
Matera asserts undesirable forms of decision making were used, vaccinated and boosted persons can get COVID, the omicron variant is more transmissible and less virulent, officialdom exists that is fixated on ineffective jabs, we should wait for a new vaccine, and too many shots may harm the immune system.
He cites a Canadian study showing two shots lasting eight weeks with 6% effectiveness against omicron and two-plus boosters lasting 10 weeks with 37% effectiveness, but doesn’t indicate the effectiveness being cited is against contagion, not against hospitalization or death.
Matera uses results in England showing 72% of hospitalizations are vaccinated persons; 25%, unvaccinated, and in Canada, 76% and 24%, to mistakenly infer that vaccinations do not protect hospitals.
Suppose 200 million infected people, 190 million vaccinated, 10 million unvaccinated. Suppose the hospitalization probability, if vaccinated, is .15789. That produces .15789 times 190 million = 30 million hospitalized vaccinated people. Suppose the unvaccinated rate is 1.00. If unvaccinated, one’s probability of hospitalization, 1.00, is 6.33 times greater. This argues for vaccination. If you’re unvaccinated you’ll be hospitalized. There’ll be 10 million times 1.00 = 10 million hospitalized unvaccinated people.
Matera would find 30 million vaccinated, 10 million unvaccinated — 75% vs. 25%, similar to the English and Canadian results. But as to hospital protection, if there were no vaccinations, all 200 million would have to be hospitalized.
Matera’s error leads to falsely asserting vaccination ineffectiveness against omicron and other questionable claims about vaccination. He argues boosters should be up to the person and their doctor. He denounces forceful mandates, concluding that because current vaccines do not prevent contagion, forcing all to take another shot is illogical and unethical, again missing the contagion-hospitalization distinction.
Gal claims Matera’s column exemplifies the continual drivel, by issue-incompetents, that news outlets should end. He indicates Matera’s comments are vague and lack references, and indicates Matera’s misunderstanding of the data.
Vandy Bollinger suggests Matera represents some unknown entity, implying Matera’s beginning is therefore deceptive. Bollinger says Matera “reports many facts out of context and omits critical conclusions.” He cites Matera’s error with the England and Canada data, omission of the UK Health Security Agency report that unvaccinated adults are eight times more likely to be hospitalized, and his missing the contagion-hospitalization distinction.
Bollinger explains that with more people getting COVID, a low rate still results in a large number of infections and asserts without reference that most of the vaccinated hospitalized are people with vulnerabilities and are much older.
Bollinger concludes a person has a right to be unvaccinated but they then forfeit certain rights and privileges, and asserts accurate data is needed, in context, in detail “rather than cherry-picking information that supports a particular viewpoint.”
Now some personal reactions to the Matera-Gal-Bollinger offerings. I favor people who use this public forum sharing, within limits, whatever they want to share, however they want to share it. Below I share my sideways glance at the Matera-Gal-Bollinger contributions without intending to tell other people how they should write. I’m not asserting anything is right or wrong. Just sharing my reactions.
Despite disagreeing with many of his arguments, I loved that Matera invited debate on an important issue. I didn’t care for his conjecture that undesirable forms of decision-making have been used because I doubt he knows the variables and priorities used in the decision-making. His notion that an officialdom exists also sounds like someone from the outside not knowing about how decisions such as mandating boosters are made.
Matera made inferential errors, reaching conclusions I wouldn’t reach, but, having taught, I see no reason to attribute bad faith to him.
Gal’s and Bollinger’s critical remarks are correct, but I wouldn’t describe Matera’s invitation to debate as drivel. There’s no evidence it’s not a sincere effort at promoting public discourse. Bollinger’s assumption that Matera represents some unknown entity is unsupported as is his inference about a deceptive beginning.
Bollinger allows one’s right to be unvaccinated but then declares they forfeit other rights and privileges without explaining how exercise of one right informs another right, or indicating who makes these decisions. As to “cherry-picking,” I’m not convinced that correctly assesses Matera’s efforts to support his case.
Richard S. Bogartz is professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
