Can Proof Ever Be Absolute? Tucker Carlson and the Conservative Fantasy of Perfect Vaccines

Coronavirus, CDC Image

What I hear almost constantly from conservatives’ anti-vaccine rhetoric is a demand for certainty. Absolutism. The coronavirus vaccines must be proven, they say absolutely for certain, to prevent all infections. The side effects must be zero. The risk must be nil. The proof must be complete. The vaccines must be flawless. They either work, or they don’t work – nothing in between, so the anti-vaxxers tell us.

And the king of the anti-vaxxers is Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

But Carlson and his ilk promote a fantasy. Perfection is a fantasy. Human beings don’t have access to perfection. No physician can offer perfect medications. No one has a perfect brain. No scientific study is perfect. We live in a world of probabilities. If we are wise, we judge our actions by what the majority of the best evidence tells us. We can expect nothing better. Yet, the conservative anti-vaccine rhetoric often insists on perfection. Their argument seems to be that the vaccines must work 100%, or 0%. It appears that nothing in-between makes sense to them. Yet we live in a world of in-betweens.

____________________

Read: Tucker Carlson Used a Textbook Fallacy to Question the Coronavirus Vaccines

____________________

 

Tucker Carlson Asks for Perfection

So, let’s look a passage from Tucker Carlson’s July 30, 2021 monologue:

“Now — surprise, surprise — they’re demanding that even after you got the shot, you wear a mask again, even when you’re outside.

“What’s going on here? Why are they doing this? There must be some reason for it. We’ve been wondering about it all week. Yesterday we asked the CDC to explain the reasoning behind it. They couldn’t tell us. Today they did. What an explanation. It turns out that the COVID vaccines – those wonder drugs that were absolutely perfect, more impressive than the moon landing, the drugs you were not allowed to question in any way – don’t actually work in the way they told us they did. The science is more complicated than we thought.”

Let’s pull out Carlson’s key phrase, which he uttered, his lips dripping with sarcasm: “those wonder drugs that were absolutely perfect.”

But No One Said Vaccines Were Perfect  

First, public health officials aren't saying that the vaccines were “absolutely perfect.” In April 2021, for example, Dr. Anthony Fauci said: “No matter what study you look at, the protection against severe disease leading to hospitalization is always well within the 90%, regardless of the study, regardless of the country.” He did not say absolutely perfect. He did not say 100% effective. He said 90%: nine times out of ten.

Further, in April 2021 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) released a major controlled study. The study found that the mRNA vaccines were highly effective, but not 100% effective:

“Prospective cohorts of 3,950 health care personnel, first responders, and other essential and frontline workers completed weekly SARS-CoV-2 testing for 13 consecutive weeks. Under real-world conditions, mRNA vaccine effectiveness of full immunization (³14 days after second dose) was 90% against SARS-CoV-2 infections regardless of symptom status; vaccine effectiveness of partial immunization (³14 days after first dose but before second dose) was 80%.”

The researchers stated the information quite clearly. The vaccines were 90% effective against infections two weeks after the second dose. That’s remarkable, but it is not 100%. It is not perfection.

Despite the admitted lack of perfection, the study concluded:

“Authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in real-world conditions. COVID-19 vaccination is recommended for all eligible persons.”

Similarly, an August 2021 research report found that the vaccines were highly but not completely effective:

“Among adults aged 65–74 years, effectiveness of full vaccination in preventing COVID-19–associated hospitalization was 96% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 94%–98%) for Pfizer-BioNTech, 96% (95% CI = 95%–98%) for Moderna, and 84% (95% CI = 64%–93%) for Janssen vaccine products.”

In other words, for older adults (like me), full vaccination prevented hospitalization with an effectiveness between 84% and 96%. That’s really good. It’s not perfect.

In September 2021 – this month – the CDC released a new study conducted among veterans hospitalized in Veterans Affairs medical centers. This is obviously a high-risk population. The results were somewhat less impressive than the April study, which was to be expected. The researchers nevertheless found that the vaccines were highly, but not perfectly, effective:

“During February 1–August 6, 2021, vaccine effectiveness among U.S. veterans hospitalized at five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers was 87%. mRNA COVID-19 vaccines remain highly effective, including during periods of widespread circulation of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. Vaccine effectiveness in preventing COVID-19–related hospitalization was 80% among adults aged ³65 years compared with 95% among adults aged 18–64 years.”

So, the researchers found that the effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations was 80% among older adults and 95% among younger adults. That’s good, of course, but still not perfect.

But Wasn't the Smallpox Vaccine Perfect? (Uh, No, It Wasn't.)

But is Tucker Carlson moderating his views in the light of repeated scientific studies? So far, no. In his September 13, 2021 monologue, Carlson carried the demand for vaccine perfection even farther:

“Unlike say the smallpox vaccine, which prevents you from getting smallpox, the COVID vaccines do not necessarily prevent you from getting COVID. The COVID vaccine does not prevent you from spreading COVID to other people. The long-term effects of the COVID vaccines are unknown, and at this point cannot be known.”

As usual, Carlson talked about perfection: “the COVID vaccines do not necessarily prevent you from getting COVID” he said.  Yes, once again, Carlson suffered from the fantasy of perfection. Nor were smallpox vaccines 100% effective. A 2003 scientific article found that the smallpox vaccines were 90%+ effective in producing an immune response. That is not 100%. By pretending that the old vaccines were perfect, Carlson falsely implied that the new vaccines are substandard. Necessarily? No, of course not. Probably? Yes. Perfection is a fantasy.

Probability Is Our Only Real Goal

Every argumentation and debate textbook warns students not to expect perfection. In the realm of human affairs, what we work for is probability, supported by evidence. If we wait for something to be proved for certain, well, we will wait forever. In their textbook, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision-Making, Austin J. Freeley and David L. Steinberg explained that point precisely:

“Probability is associated with a high degree of likelihood (but not certainty) that a conclusion is true. As advocates we will spend much of our time trying to prove that our propositions have a high degree of probability and are more probably true than those of our opponents. For example, no method of contraception is 100 percent effective; even sterilization fails at times, and other methods range from 76 percent to 97.6 percent in their effectiveness. Thus, in choosing contraceptives, people are basing their decisions on probabilities.”

So, let us get back to Tucker Carlson’s July 30 conclusion: “The science is more complicated than we thought.” Is that not the point? Strangely enough, Carlson even admitted the problem of perfection at another point in his July 30 monologue:

“Surprised? You shouldn’t be surprised. Science is like that. It can change quickly. It is never really settled, despite what they tell you.”

Unfortunately, Carlson did not offer that cautionary comment to reassure his listeners that the bulk of scientific evidence was accurate. No, instead, he cast doubt on believing in any scientific information – since scientific information can change, should we believe it at all? “Despite what they tell you?” What a strange twist on the problem of perfection and certainty.

Conclusion: Judge by Probability and Evidence

Perhaps the anti-vaccine people insist that they will only change their minds if they hear 100% proof that they are wrong. Perhaps they think that is better to be wrong than to change. To insist on perfect proof, however, is to insist on something that can never be.

The scientific researchers and public health officials who Tucker Carlson misrepresented and ridiculed said exactly what they should have said. They said that the vaccines are effective with a stated degree of probability. Yes, it is possible to be vaccinated and still get sick. However, the evidence shows that the probability of being healthy is much greater if one is vaccinated than if one is not vaccinated. To pursue perfection is to chase a fantasy.

____________________

Read: “And This Is Their New Hoax:” Donald Trump’s Six Deadly Words Still Ravage Our Nation

____________________

P. S.: On a side note, if a person wants to be well-informed about scientific information, especially on a controversial subject, one can look directly at the scientific studies. Many of these are found on Google Scholar at scholar.google.com. On the right-hand column of a Google Scholar search, the reader can find full-text copies of some of the actual articles. Otherwise, your local library probably has access to the research databases. Librarians will be happy to help you find the information you need, and it doesn’t take much more time than browsing around on doubtful websites. If people want to do their own research, looking at Facebook posts and political blogs does not do the job. Listening to uninformed or devious political pundits is no better. The best way to avoid media misinformation is not to become cynical and turn to mindless negativism. No, bypass the media and go to the source!