Poll: (2020-) COVID-19 pandemic
Feel free to give your reasons (and demographics), but please move to the general discussion over here for anything else: Coronavirus
There's another related discussion over here: Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
There's another related discussion over here: Anti-vaccination: Is it right?
Comments (372)
Mandatory vaccination (or frequent testing) in some settings (e.g. packed offices, schools, hospitals)
For. (Until 80-90% of nat'l pop. is fully vaccinated)
For.
Against.
For.
For
For
I want mandatory vaccinations and passports for Republicans/Trumpsters and those who don't want them. Voluntary for everyone else.
"When I was thinking, that it might do some good
If we robbed the cynics and took all their food
That way what they believe will have taken place
And we can give it to everybody who have some faith"
Jewel [emphasis added]
Against
Against
To balance the predictability. And because its the true me.
"When I was thinking, that it might do some good
If we robbed the cynics and took all their food
That way what they believe will have taken place
And we can give it to everybody who have some faith"
Jewel emphasis added
:grin:
Altough... This would mean all survive. But they cant transmit.
"those who don't want them"
Who are those?
Yes.
Don't know. How would it be rolled out? There are gaps in the current system. All most people got as proof of vaccination is a flimsy paper card that is easily lost or destroyed. My first shot was recorded by my health insurance company but my second, at a mass vaccination site while traveling was lost in the ether. Mandatory vaccination for school districts works because the case load is low and pediatricians have had decades to be forced into adequate records compliance. With the vaccine, my fear would be people losing their jobs, access to services, because the shots were flooded out without good records keeping. This would also probably hit poor people worst. This is less of an issue if it continues to be shown that additional shots aren't a risk, since people could just get another.
Yes.
Don't have numbers though, but it does make some sense, doesn't it?
Same here. Although Colorado has one of those Driver's Licenses that you can get through TSA with at the airport and they have now created a process where you can get your vax linked to it. You know, so they can load us on the trains and take us to the ovens when we no longer serve Zog's purpose.
In the EU, a covid passport is a paper or digital document with one's covid status (recovered, vaccinated, or tested) linked to an online database that can be accessed online by those who have to check if a person has a valid covid passport. Data is fed into this database by medical personnel at vaccination and testing facilities.
So even if you lose the paper document or your smart phone, you can always get a new copy of the passport.
Don't know
For
Do the vaccines prevent new variants emerging? Any research into this?
No.
K.
Against.
Against.
The vaccine is available and everybody that wants to get vaccinated can (in Europe and the US, what we seem to be talking about). Vaccination willingness seems to be sufficient to avoid deathly illness. More vaccination might lower hospital admittance and IC use but all that is temporary anyway as the cohorts that would end up in the hospital either die or get immunity through having the disease.
The genie is out of the bottle any way, we're going to have to live with Covid and after vaccination/first infection it really doesn't seem worse than the flu. We'll get plenty of new variants. We shouldn't be living in fear. Living healthily is the best protection.
As much as I hate it, I do believe in the freedom for other people to make stupid choices. We never mandated measles vaccines, which was much, much worse in terms of infection rate and slightly higher death rate but also risk of blindness.
We're too scared.
Also fuck boosters except for the elderly and those with known comorbidities and send vaccines to countries that can't afford them. That will save many more lives than boosters can.
Finally, if a hospital is ever faced with a triage situation they ought to boot unvaccinated Covid patients out of the IC regardless of other considerations like age, likelihood of survival, etc. Some consequences ought to be felt.
EDIT: I also think we should be much quicker in closing off borders if a new variant is detected in another country. Just stop all non-essential travel and require quarantine if you travel from such a country until its clear whether the variant is similar or worse than the existing variant.
Do you feel the same about all known risk factors for hospitalisation? Can we categorise risk factors into those we find acceptable and those we don't by any criteria (apart from the actual risk itself, as a crude number)?
I ask because @Srap Tasmaner and I are discussing just that question and I'm interested in the range of variables people might include.
Your idea of "ought to" is for medical professionals to carry out petty revenge fantasies?
What an utterly sick statement you made - I find it hard to believe you really meant it, and I question your sanity if you do.
If people wilfully refuse preventive treatment and then get the illness they could've prevented then obviously they ought to move down the line of priorities when doctors have to make decisions about where to commit resources. So if you're a strapping young lad without a vaccination and you need an IC bed and a 90 year old vaccinated granny needs one as well, you both have Covid but there's only one bed, you can most definitely go fuck yourself. If she fell down the stairs and you have Covid and both need the bed you can still fuck yourself. Only when you get into the hospital for something else but Covid should regular rules apply.
That said, I think this should be the case with respect to all vaccinations. Children who can't decide for themselves yet exempted or course.
Quoting Benkei
Your disdain for people who make different decisions than you, regardless of their reasons, shines clearly through your posts. You dislike these people, and wish them to be punished for their mistakes. The fact that they were forced to pay their entire lives for collective healthcare - ergo for a large part paid for bad decisions of others - apparently irrelevant.
I've told you before, your opinions seem based on surface level representations of a problem, and you don't make the slightest attempt at looking beyond your own moral framework - apparently even when it concerns matters of life and death.
Like it is a game, it is stated that "people should be booted out of the IC."
You know just adding the word 'obviously' to a proposition doesn't act as a substitute for a justification, obviously.
Should doctors treat car passengers above motorcycle riders in a RTA? Cars are a demonstrably safer means of travel and such information is publicly available, so if someone willfully avoids a practice which reduces their risk of hospitalisation, they should feel the consequences, right?
What about diet, exercise, health and safety recommendations, alcohol consumption, sporting activities...? Are we going to use those criteria in triage too?
Then we'll have to factor in access to information, of course. Those with learning difficulties will need to be identified (we can't hold them to the same standard of willful disregard), those with English as a second language, recent immigrants, the minorities in culturally oppressive groups like women and older children... All shunted to the back of the queue for refusing advice they barely understood or had little control over?
It's not disdain to insist choices have consequences. Nor is it novel. That choices should have consequences is clear. And your "but they paid their entire lives" doesn't make them special, so did the 90 year old granny.
Except she got vaccinated.
You keep thinking I would deny health care to unvaccinated people but I've been very clear under which circumstances.
Quoting Tzeentch
Under rather specific circumstances, which you keep happily ignoring. Do you disagree with the examples I gave?
Quoting Isaac
No. The difference is when you have a victim of the person exceeding the speed limit and the person who exceeded the speed limit. If that information would be available at the moment if having to decide who to operate first, the moral decision is clear. It's about conscious choices and whether that choice is a proximate cause or not.
Quoting Isaac
Of course we can and we already do. A learning disability is no excuse for paying taxes late, parking in the wrong zone or not knowing how to lodge a complaint against a government institution. These aren't solved by tweaking the rules but by providing systems of care.
Riding a motorcycle is a conscious choice. So are all the other factors I mentioned. And their link to increased risk is no less demonstrable. To be clear, not getting vaccinated does not cause covid, it increases the risk. We're entirely talking about actions which foreseeably increase risk. Choosing to ride a motorcycle instead of a car is such an action.
Quoting Benkei
These are all mitigated by circumstance. Punishment will almost always be less severe in such cases.
The objection is simple;
Triage is based on the principle of maximising human life. Scarce resources are put to that end in the order in which they will most effectively achieve that goal entirely because it is a goal we find to be higher than any other outcome triage processes might yield.
You're suggesting that above the value of human life, we should hold the value of 'teaching them that actions have consequences', or the value of creating a more 'deserving' society by weeding out those less worthy of its benefits.
Yes, but not a proximate cause of an accident and still considered generally safe, which is why some cars aren't permitted on roads.
Quoting Isaac
I think all lives are equally valuable but for any contributory negligence. I don't see any good reason to prioritise young people over old people, for instance, but I do see good reason to prioritise help if someone culpably has put himself in a particularly dangerous situation. In most cases this choice isn't forced because there's plenty of room and resources available with acceptable waiting lists for non urgent healthcare. But in a triage situation, sure, I don't think someone in a car accident should not be helped because the IC would be full with unvaccinated Covid patients. I'd kick one of those Covid patients off the IC without any guilt.
You should not ever be allowed to triage.
Also, this is actually not true. People from lower socio-economic backgrounds are disproportionally sanctioned for breaking laws with less leniency applied. That's in part institutional racism, in part network corruption and part knowing how to deal with authorities (and sometimes even just speaking the language and understanding your rights).
Most laws that are passed disproportionally benefit rich people.
People seem to misunderstand healthcare isn't an entitlement but a privilege. So we can definitely decide to set rules for people to receive that privilege.
And this is why you shouldn't be allowed near healthcare. You don't understand that your personal judgements about people's choices must be placed on the shelf. You treat everyone you come across as is that was you laying there.
The fact that you say bizarre things without any hesitancy indicates that something is awry with your morality equipment.
They were mandated in certain settings. I recall there being a measles vaccine mandate when I was in public school and having to stand in line in the high school gym to get vaccinated.
I know to register my kids in school, I had to submit proof of vaccinations, and they couldn't enter university without providing vaccine proof. In the early 90s, I worked for the prosecutor's office and I had to go to the public health clinic and get some vaccines.
I see the sociological change over the past few decades not as much as a surge in belief in individual liberties, but more as a symptom of political polarization, leading to a decline in trust of non-tribal authority, and only accepting what your political allies advocate.
That you support the right for others to make stupid decisions is a principled one, and one that I can understand, but it's not one I would personally spend time fighting for. Should you win the battle and secure the common man's inherent right to be stupid, I'm not certain the world will be better off.
There's an important distinction between thinking everybody should have access to healthcare and everybody is entitled to healthcare.
The ethics of triage:
1. autonomy, patients can decide if they want care or not and if there are options in type of care, select the option of their preference.
2. normaleficence, don't unnecessarily increase risk to harm others or intentionally harm others.
3. beneficence, do what is right for the patient.
4. justice, treat similar cases, similarly, treat dissimilar cases, differently. Justice as fairness.
5. fidelity, patients ought to be able to trust doctors.
How does my proposal fit in? Pretty well I'd say. A doctor is screwed on 2, 3 and 5 anyways, as a choice for one or the other will harm the other, won't do one of them any good and probably will be experienced as a breach of trust by the person on the wrong side of the equation.
On autonomy it's interesting that this is the primary consideration but already three posters are getting hysterical about including patient autonomy exercised before coming into the hospital. That's rather inconsistent if you ask me.
My proposal rests most squarely on a consideration of justice. If you willfully make decisions that contribute to you requiring care and those decisions are proximate causes to you requiring care, then all other things being equal, you are not the priority patient.
We have a bible belt where people don't get the measles vaccine either and every 10-15 years or so there's an outbreak. Maybe longer ago there was an obligation, I don't know, but not for as long as I've been around. I don't think Covid is deadly enough to warrant a vaccine obligation (otherwise we can start with mandating flu boosters in the US and EU as well). And if it isn't obligated, I don't see any reason why people would have to submit proof or carry passports.
As an aside, what you describe isn't institutionalized racism, but institutionalized classism. Race might distinguish class in certain societies, but I think an often overlooked issue is the role of class in society regardless of race. Equating race and class suggests a monolithic white class structure, as if Appalachian whites who originated as indentured servants and freed prisoners are of the same class today as New England whites originating from the English aristocracy.
Again, this is not the kind of decision a triager makes. Stay in your lane, buddy.
The outbreaks were in New York, Washington, Oregon, Michigan, New Jersey, and California, not the bible belt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_resurgence_in_the_United_States
The original anti-vaxxers were left wing. Today the Trumpians have joined forces to some degree, although they have arrived at their own medical science consisting of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and drinking bleach.
I can see how that may have come across like that so let me clarify a bit more how things are going in the Netherlands. Police, public prosecution and judges in the Netherlands like "getting" Johnny Foreigner, they're more often picked out, more often prosecuted and sanctioned more harshly and they are generally part of the lower socio-economic backgrounds based on correlation. That's the part which is "institutionalised racism".
The second part would be where it concerns local governments, that I generally either know them directly or "I know a guy that knows a guy" and since I'm considered a "more upstanding" citizen than a poorer person (because we measure everything in money, including someone's moral worth) I'm treated differently. That's typical classicism. And also shows where upper middle class people make up the majority of employees in the prosecution and judges, those who write the laws, those who enforce administrative penalties and work at the tax office. So they speak "my language", which makes it a million times easier for me to give them a call first, discuss my case, maybe meet in person and ask for leniency and generally try to bend or avoid the rules. And it works. Or at least, I'm pretty certain it's not all just me being a glib lawyer.
Again, maybe actually make an argument.
EDIT: In fact, I find the idea, that because "triager" does something in a certain way that therefore we can't have an opinion about how ethics should influence decisions that actually had to be made last year, a bit ridiculous. Especially on a philosophy forum.
Ask your anesthesiologist friend. Hopefully he's got more of a moral compass than you do.
:up:
If it was my loved one's life on the line who needed the bed, then I'd make the decision for the triager. That settles that. Some times a selfish, inconsiderate, disrespectful asshole makes it my lane.
Healthcare professionals aren't in a position to judge the choices people have made. In a real triage situation, all you have is people in various stages of hurt.
You want to give priority to motorcycle accident over unvaccinated Covid19 because of the choices you think they made? Did you drug screen the accident victim? Was it a suicide attempt? Is the COVID patient really unvaccinated? Or is he just confused as hell and didn't understand the question?
1. You don't have time to deal with any of this. In a severe, disaster type triage situation, where you have to chose who lives and dies, you identity who you think you can save.
2. In a situation where you do have the life histories of your patients in front of you, you still focus on each person as a human being.
Here's the problem: (trying to think how to explain it because I never have). Judging people is something lawyers and judges wrangle with, and bless them that they know how to sort through that stuff. That is not my job. My job is to be part of a team that shows mercy to all.
If you guys want to execute them later, ok, whatever society wants to do. I will not kill them for you, and any healthcare workers who step in that direction need to be eliminated from our ranks.
I'm not a nurse.
People like you abound. That's why we have huge security personnel.
So I really don't see a problem with a doctor inquiring as to whether the patient believed in taking non-FDA-approved Rx before giving non-FDA-approved Rx to a patient. And if a vaxxed person comes in from an automobile accident and needing a vent, and if there are no beds left, I see no problem with ripping the vent out of the yap of a Trumpster, shoving his gurney out in the hall, sterilizing the vent and using it on the accident victim.
Get the biggest ones you want. Get as many as you want.
You'll wake up tied to a bed with a tube down your throat. If you start struggling, we'll put you back to sleep.
I don't know what all the various triage scenarios are that you have cooked up in your brain. What I'm getting at is a limited number of beds CREATED by assholes during a pandemic. I'm not talking about a train wreck, or a shooter in Las Vegas. I'm talking about assholes during a pandemic.
Uh, no. You'll just end up with more big people to triage. I'll be fine.
Most humans are assholes. How have you not noticed this yet?
I have noticed it. Some are even stupid assholes. Where is Darwin when you need him?
:lol: You'll definitely be fine. You'll end up in the psych ward eventually.
How about the rest of here just stipulate that you can kick Chuck Norris's ass any time you like and you leave off making posts where you remind us?
Chuck and a good 50% of the people on the planet (at least!) could easily kick my ass in a fair fight. How about we stipulate to that?
Now that's a possibility.
I can see how in disaster triage making decisions like this is much harder. And I'll definitely grant that the "protocol" I suggested doesn't work in many circumstances. But we have triage all the time also without the pressure. When I had to go to the hospital with my son there weren't enough IC beds available either (pre-Covid). Just a confluence of circumstances.
The 5 principles I mentioned aren't my invention; they're actually used to write protocols and in arriving at decisions. If you're confronted with a triage situation, after assessing it and it fits the protocol, you can follow the protocol.
But let's start somewhere. Let's assume you have perfect knowledge and there are two patients, male, 26-years old, both have COVID, one is vaccinated the other isn't. Both need a vent and there's only one vent. Who gets the vent? Is this an obvious case to you? If not, why not?
I know. I've had disaster triage training, but never had to use it. I'm not in that kind of role now.
Quoting Benkei
I would intubate the first one and put him on a vent, then intubate the next one and manually ventilate (we call it bagging). If another needs to be intubated, I would show whoever is nearby with nothing to do at the moment, how to bag and intubate the next one.
I spend a lot of time planning for situations like that, so it's a hellish day if all my planning is for nothing and I have secretaries standing around bagging my patients. I would be aiming to keep people alive and keep their brains oxygenated so it wasn't all for nothing.
Which one is the first one?
I don't know. You can't really plan how you're going to kick chuck Norris's ass. You gotta be in the moment.
Vehemently against
Vehemently against
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2104289
You as a citizen, a loved one or high ranking judge are NOT allowed to even enter the hospital lobby in Arizona at this exact moment in time.
One exception my friend: if you have a loved one who is in the end of life: last 15 minutes.
You can bully and bluster till the cows come home but you are wrong. :100:
Become a disrespectful asshole and you will be arrested.
The only way you are getting in to make any kind of a decision in this pandemic is to get educated with a degree, complete residency, work in the hospital for a long enough time to have your voice respected.
My respect for anyone who is having to be in the moment. :sparkle:
That's fine for you to think that. We want people like you to think that. It's good to have protocols. Until it's not. That's when shit gets real.
Ah, but Benkei's scenario said you did know. You aren't willing to address hypotheticals as you play on your key board today?
And you and your erroneous assumptions can kindly fuck off. I walked a medical crisis in the middle of this pandemic, I tried to get arrested for me to advocate for seeing my loved one, I had people willing and ready to post bail for me. It doesn't fucking work. No amount of tantrums or money will get you in. I TRIED!
Not being able to see your loved one for over a month is criminal. I could not agree more.
But, BUT, if you try to be an asshole, you will be treated as one.
You do NOT know of what you speak. Period.
Is this all a game for you?
I know I wouldn't "tried to get arrested". Nor would I throw a tantrum or use money. I'm a firm believer in technology. Oh, and I would have no problem not seeing my loved one if they were in the hospital being taken care of. I would thank my lucky stars they were in there. That's not what we are talking about here. So you can kindly fuck off yourself.
P.S. Hopefully your loved one was not in there for failure to vax, murdering other people who could have used the bed.
It is now.
You know, on "The Philosophy Forum". If you can't entertain a hypothetical, then get back to work.
Quick follow-up, FMI.
Suppose a family had decided not to let unvaccinated (or untested / unmasked / not following protocols) into their home.
Would you be against that?
[sup](I mean, not so much a matter of "it's their choice in their own home", but in terms of reasons for being "Vehemently against")[/sup]
Neither is avoiding vaccination. Not having a vaccine is not the cause of covid. It's caused by contact with the SARS-cov-2 virus at sufficient load to overwhelm the immune system in a body with any one of a number of vulnerabilities. Getting vaccinated is just one of the ways a person can reduce the risk of that happening. You've not explained why you prioritize one particular method of reducing one particular risk.
Quoting Benkei
Being a young, relatively healthy person, unvaccinated is considered relatively safe. Your chances of needing hospital treatment are well below one in two or three thousand.
Quoting Benkei
Right, but eating bacon every day for breakfast demonstrably does exactly that. As does riding a motorcycle.
Quoting Benkei
Someone's mental health, socio-economic or cultural background can be cited in a plea for leniency. I've provided assessments for exactly such purposes. I really hope I wasn't wasting my time.
Quoting Benkei
Yes, but that's not a good thing is it? You're proposing one more.
Quoting Benkei
Yes, but you've then got to decide extents. You've just assumed not getting vaccinated is top of the list of such decisions. It's not even close to top. Being obese is probably top, a sedentary lifestyle second, poor diet third. Beyond that there's dangerous activities such as sports. Failure to take prophylactic medicine wouldn't even be in the top ten. All are just as proximate, all just as demonstrably linked.
I'm not against that. I'm against governments forcing people to do that.
That's easy. If the proximate cause is being an obstinate, petulant, Trump-supporting, Republican "rebel against the man" then you don't get treated. If you are fat, love fat food, and support a fat industry that sells fat food, then, while that is a proximate cause, it's not nearly as culpable. One is an inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish asshole; the other not. And even worse than those two? That would be the poser throwing shade on the vax instead of on the fat. After all, if fat is worse, then you don't waste your time messing with the vax. You get out there and help people make healthy choices about what they eat. You attack the industry. But yeah, it's easier to use fat people as a shill to get your shade thrown on smarter people who are trying to help with a pandemic.
Right, when things are happening, there's no time to waste, including checking whether an incoming person is un/vaccinated.
That being said, @Benkei's point seems fair enough.
(Not that it matters, personally, I can see why, seems a fair consequence, though I haven't worked out if my conscience can run with that.)
The one vaccinated gets the one bed left, in priority over the other who deliberately chose not to be vaccinated (and may have to be isolated in a hallway, sent home, or whatever).
Regardless of whatever analogies, such considerations are still on the table.
Georgia cop who pushed people to take horse dewormer instead of vaccine dies from COVID-19 (Aug 27, 2021)
I'll ask you the same question I put to Benkei then. Why vaccination? It's not even that high on the list of choices which proximally increase your risk of needing a hospital bed.
That's not the right hypothetical. Instead focus on the healthcare worker 14 hours into trying to keep the situation under control and failing.
Frustration amped by exhaustion appears. Anger from being hungry, tired, needing to pee, etc. Do I hate white people because they're so fucking lucky? Let me deal with the black woman first.
Do I hate Jews because that one I know did that stupid thing? That guy looks Jewish, let me deal with this other guy first.
Am I really frustrated that this situation wouldn't be so bad if more people were vaccinated? Well, every covid positive patient here is probably unvaccinated, so let me just feed this anger a little more.
This is all irrational bullshit talking. Stop. Go pee. Go sit down and eat a doughnut. Write stupid stuff on your phone to people you don't know.
Now go back and deal with whatever.
Choosing not to vax makes you an jerk. Choosing to get fat makes you fat. I like fat people more than jerks. I should choose. Make me king.
Scale it up.
The board of hospitals makes such a decision.
For/against then? (anti-government rhetoric aside)
I'm against denying people medical services.
It may not be the right hypothetical, but it is the hypothetical you were presented with. Anyway, ask yourself about who (besides a virus) created the awful circumstances you just described? Was it all the people who got the vax? Did they create that mess, that untenable situation you are in? Hell, even a doc in a combat zone will treat his own guys first. Enemy comes later.
I would think every doctor in the land should know what his patients condition is, like Isaac's fat guy, or my anti-vax guy or whatever. Ask. Did you get the vax? If not, why not? Next . . .
And most of these situations did not arise with people coming in unconscious. They come in sick, complaining, articulating. They can lie, of course. Hence the card. And if you have enough beds, then, just like a combat zone, you treat them, even if they are an enemy. Hippocrates and all that. Great. Love it. But you prioritize those who did exactly what you, as a fucking doctor, told them to do: they got vaxed. Now you are going to turn them away because you're helping some Trumpster who told gubmn't and doctors and their fellow citizens to go fuck themselves?
I'm reading you and am sending you energies. I wish I could do more.
In not a doctor. I'm a respiratory therapist.
And no, hospitals don't prioritize based on vaccination history.
Don't make us paralyze and intubate you, man.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I'll take it. :blush:
Let's stipulate that there is a pandemic of other, non-Covid proximate causes. A bunch of them. Okay? Now, here's the distinction: our system is and was set up to deal with ALL those other proximate causes, with X number of beds, resources, protocols, and whatnot. Now we have a new player in town, a new straw tossed on the camels back, in what is called a "pandemic." Look it up. Finally, add the fact that there is a simple and free way to stay out of the hospital and avoid stressing those resources that were not designed for this pandemic.
That is the direct, clear answer to your question "Why vaccination."
That's the point of the argument: They should. I'm not hearing any arguments as to why they shouldn't. After all, it's not any more burdensome than asking what they had for breakfast that morning. Or if they had their X shot in the last ten years, or if grandma had uterine cancer too, etc.
No it isn't and wasn't.
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
Quoting James Riley
Yes there is. I've already done it. Remain at a healthy bmi, eat well, exercise regularly, avoid crowded places during pandemics, wear a mask, wash hands regularly... Are you going to ask all the inpatients about those actions too?
So no, no one has yet answered...
Quoting James Riley
...because no one has given anything which distinguishes vaccination from other courses of action one could take to avoid needing a hospital bed in a time of crisis.
Ha!
I can't even read the whole title on my phone, but I don't have to to know exactly what that is.
I take back every bad thing I've ever said about you.
I'll just be over here, typing along to the strange rhythms in my head...
You must be unfamiliar with the concept of baseline. Look it up. But let's play your game: assuming for the sake of argument the system was not set up for those pandemics, it makes my argument even stronger. We don't have universal single payor either. We should. So what? The baseline is what you have to work with and we've been working with it (or, to assume your argument), or trying to work within it for decades, if not more. To toss a NEW player on the field, a player than can easily be vaxed to keep you out of that system, is another straw that should bear it's own burdens, if people choose to not avail themselves of the option.
Quoting Isaac
No, I'm not going to ask them about those actions. You know why? First, because some of them are the essential workers that allow spoiled people like you and me to isolate in the first place. Second, because if they did not wear a mask or wash hands regularly and had vaxed, they wouldn't be there. DOH! The vax is the arbiter. Not all that other stuff. We are trying to keep people out of hospital beds; not shut down the economy that you and I rely on.
Quoting Isaac
Yes, someone has answered the question. You just don't like the answer. I hope everyone else noticed how you just pivoted from other proximate causes to other courses of action. So now you are saying that had people just done what they were told in the first fucking place, like distance, mask, wash, then we wouldn't need the vax. Guess what? You are right! But you had your own counterparts out there throwing shade on distancing, masking and washing so we needed a vax. Now we need a vax and they pivot to blaming a lack of distance, mask, wash. WTF?
Here's the deal, Isaac: We live in a world where not everyone is going to live up to your standards of distancing, masking, washing, BMI, etc. And, as a non-thinking person, you might argue "Well, they SHOULD! Everyone should be like me! Everyone should listen to me, Isaac, internet poser and expert on epidemiology!" But that ain't the world, Isaac. Go get your fucking vax. You know better. You're just being a gadfly, a troll. But, to the extent anyone is listening to you, you are a bed taker, a killer.
OK, but that wasn't quite the question, though.
In this case there aren't enough of them - beds/resources (actually, some of this is non-hypothetical).
Hence ...
Quoting jorndoe
I thought it was implied in my answer that I am against the board of hospitals making such a decision.
If there isn't enough resources to provide healthcare then that represents a failure on the part of the hospital or healthcare system. Mandating vaccine passports because the hospital or healthcare system is failing to provide healthcare is a ridiculous, if not stupid policy, especially when unvaccinated ? infected.
unvaccinated infected (majority, ? priority) ? vaccinated infected (minority, ? priority)
Do you believe hospitals should deny people healthcare because they are unvaccinated?
People who say yes to that will either put themselves on the wrong side of history or remain irrelevant. Hopefully the latter, huh?
How's Canada doing?
Me personally? Well, no, but that's irrelevant, and still wasn't the question.
The board of hospitals decides that ...
Quoting jorndoe
Quoting jorndoe
Not quite a trolley problem, see earlier comments.
There are examples of hospitals running full, and this is a possibly extreme example given earlier:
Quoting jorndoe
It depends.
How many beds do I have and do I have room for a vaxxed person who might come in for some other reason, up to and including being too fat, having a heart attack, asthma, etc.
Why did you not get a vax? If you did not get a vax because it was not FDA-approved, do you want me to try and save your life with other drugs that are not FDA-approved?
Should I call Tucker Carlson or Isaac for their expert advice?
My answer to the original question could very well be "yes." And it's too early to determine whether or not that answer would put me on the wrong side of history. It does, however, seem that I am irrelevant. For now. I sincerely hope it stays that way.
We’re in the midst of another wave. Where I live, “vaccine passports” have been mandated by the provincial government as an interim solution until the country transitions to a federally compliant proof of vaccine.
Why would you discriminate against the unvaccinated and vaccinated, when only the infected pose a risk?
I would not discriminate against the vaccinated. As to the unvaccinated: beds.
Beds? It seems to me a moral person would procure more beds before denying people healthcare.
:100: :up: It seems to me a moral person would champion universal, single payor health care for 8 billion people and then calculate how much kit and how many health care workers would be required to respond to a pandemic that makes covid look like an inconvenient pimple. Then spin that up. But there are too many immoral people in the world that would object to that. They did not plan ahead for Covid, they trashed the contingency plans that were being worked on, and they throw shade on all the ideas of the moral people.
Aren't you in western Canada? Pretty progressive aren't they? Glad your head hasn't exploded yet.
Italy was well known for its universal healthcare system, yet the pandemic proved its flimsiness, with its hospitals unable to provide the basics. Most countries with such systems had to lock down society just to keep them afloat.
And no consideration is given as to why a person didn't get vaccinated.
It's quite strange that there are no contraindications for covid vaccines. For most medications and medical treatments, there are contraindications, even for non-prescription ones, but somehow, covid vaccines are a stellar exemption, popularily deemed safer even than Aspirin.
People with already compromised immune systems due to a genetic disease or cancer are put in the same category as perfectly healthy people. People with already compromised immune systems due to a genetic disease or cancer who are otherwise advised against many medications and medical treatments, on account that they would be too dangerous for their already compromised immune system, nevertheless are expected to get vaccinated.
Medically, this is a dangerous practice, although ideologically, it certainly makes perfect sense.
I guess they didn't do the moral thing, as you suggested, and procure more beds.
Hey, I have an idea that is moral: Let's make it a pay to play system. You know, if you have money, you get treated. The more money, the better the treatment. If you don't have enough, we just shuttle you out into the street.
Of course, there is a down side. Who's going to do all the essential services for the remaining rich people? Will they have to pick their own fruit? Heaven forbid!
Yes. In some of those countries, doctors and esp. medical nurses have been complaining for years that they are severely understaffed (and underpayed). Even in peace time, the medical system wasn't able to take care of all the people who need medical care in a timely manner. Waiting times are measured in 6-months periods, or even years. For example, you could be having a severe headache for weeks, and have to wait for 6 months to get an MRI (and that would be fast).
So it's no surprise that people in those countries don't have much faith in the medical system.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/17/the-art-of-the-pandemic-how-donald-trump-walked-the-u-s-into-the-covid-19-era/
There are many other reasons that Americans don't have much faith in the medical system. It's no wonder posers are throwing shade on the experts. They are doubly frustrated: 1. By an inadequate system; 2. By their own inability to understand science that is over their head.
A moral and compassionate act would be to provide healthcare to those who cannot afford it. Delegating such moral and compassionate acts to a government monopoly reeks to me of immorality and heartlessness, in my mind.
So you would delegate it to who? The private for profit health care industry? Who's going to pay? Who's going to provide?
P.S. Such delegation is exactly why we have government. DOH! Who does the delegating? The people. To who? The private sector? A lot of good that does. We are back to the pay to play thing I mentioned above. Health care is four-square in the center of why human beings have government in the first place. Like national defense.
Why not yourself?
Because I'm not a medical doctor.
Exactly my point. :100:
You know not of what you speak.
Grab an education, some empathy to your fellow man and come on back when you gain some grace.
Henry Dunant wasn't a doctor and he started the Red Cross.
I'm not speaking out of school. I'm not telling people they don't need to vax. Or that other comorbidities should be looked at first. I'm not pretending to be a doctor, an immunologist or Fauci. I do know of what I do speak: It's my opinion.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I've got an education, I've got empathy for my fellow man (that's why I distance, mask, vax). I don't have grace because people like you talk shit without argument. Make a case and we can argue. Until then, all I see is trolling.
Asking the individual to do a group task without a group is to ask him to work against his interests. I taught you that with the gallon of gas example. It's the same with health care. You say the moral thing would be to procure more beds. The moral thing would have been to doubled down on what Trump threw in the trash can. Why don't you go string your own power lines and build your own www so we can debate on TPF.
If one had to choose between denying people healthcare and procuring more beds, procuring more beds is the moral option. Absent that, give healthcare anyways, on the floor if necessary. That was my only point.
You’ve taught me nothing but to enjoy the benefits of Trump’s Operation Warpspeed, or unscrupulous actors will deny people healthcare if they don’t.
Good point. But you would just do "first come, first serve." At least you're consistent on that. It's not unlike the money deal.
Quoting NOS4A2
That's a self-own.
Quoting NOS4A2
But if that is your lesson, then I've succeeded. Go VAX!
Slight digression to a previous post, you know, I hate to rain on the Red Cross or Henry Durant, but is it possible that he relieved the government of some of it's responsibility to look out for the general health and welfare? By doing so, did he free up government resources to do other things like, oh, I don't know, whatever? I know Switzerland is neutral, but the Red Cross takes a lot of burden off of waring nations.
He also might have taken the heat off of some rich folks who otherwise might have been called upon to, I dont' know, pay taxes? So yeah, when an individual tries to step up, be consistent, follow his conscience, he sometimes makes things worse. I'm sure the 1% love it when individuals go around taking the heat off of them.
Yeah, I know, why pretend to care about privacy now, right? Still, I have doubts that we should willingly give out our info to insurance companies or governments, there are good reasons to be warry of them on some occasions.
The mandatory vaccines in certain areas shouldn't be much of a concern, unless you are one of the few people who have real problems with vaccines (allergies, health complications, etc.)
Maybe, maybe not? What do you think? It's usually easy enough to identify people that require special medical attention. (Maybe ridiculous conspiracy theories are special conditions.) Actually, I think trying to round up medical conditions is standard procedure; maybe @frank or someone knows.
Quoting baker
Keep up. Some known suspects include allergy, blood clotting, adverse reactions in some children. But, saying "hey, it works, which can't be right" doesn't work.
I guess @NOS4A2 had nothing to say on the topic. :-/
True. I think I just read about two men in their thirties dying shortly after getting a shot.
Of course, science must be done to determine if it was the shot, and then, apparently, we get to subtract comorbidities that might have killed them. Because, you know, in that case the shot is absolved of all culpability. Like Covid is innocent if the person was overweight, had asthma or was weak.
Sarcasm aside, I do know of two people who suffered (according to them) greatly after the shot. The first person was good with the first shot but the second shot rolled her socks for 18 hours and she thought she was going to die. The other person got the first shot, felt bad and decided to not get the second shot.
My family got the J&J, one and done. I woke up that night with the chills in a hot room and felt that way for about 15 minutes and it went away. Sore arm, but same as the flue shot. The wife had more of a go of it, and so did my son. But it was all first day and not horrible.
Anyway, there are issues with the shots. I don't see any reason not to take them though. We were warned about the side affects that we experienced and decided to help out anyway.
Right, yeah, the day-after-downtime is common enough I think, often after the 2[sup]nd[/sup] vaccination. It's usually advertised by those administering the vaccinations.
Yes, definitely.
Quoting James Riley
As noble as that may sound, that universal healthcare is paid for by forcing individuals to part with their wealth under threat of violence.
In fact, the majority of political opinions are of this nature - opinions about what one believes governments should force others to do.
I don't believe what constitutes a moral person is whether they have opinions of this nature. As far as I am concerned opinions aren't very important at all in that regard, but such opinions seem to sooner contribute to the immorality of a person.
Quoting Benkei
The further we dive into hypotheticals, the more I am convinced the point of this is allowing you to fantasize of the punishment you would so eagerly apply to people whose choices you disagree with.
Maybe, in such a case as you describe, it is enough to consider it a devilish dilemma that I would not wish upon anyone. To have to make such a choice may haunt someone for the rest of their life, yet here you are treating it like you have all the answers - like it is a game.
Again, the interpretation that I'm looking to "punish" is your own. I don't think what I've described is a devilish dilemma; it's a rather clear hypothetical that people on the other side of the argument seem to refuse to want to answer because the answer seems rather clear - ethically speaking. It just so happens that clear answer contradicts the position you've assumed resulting in enough cognitive dissonance that you prefer to make this about me. That's just a pathetic way of trying to change the subject.
Yes, a very difficult decision in real life that some people actually have to make. Having a protocol at hand if such a situation arises would actually alleviate the burden on people and relieves them from personal responsibility when having to make such decision, which is precisely why - in real life - hospitals use protocols for all sorts of situations.
Everything must seem rather clear if you believe your own perspectice is all that exists. Moral flag-waving is not very convincing when it is done with lack of understanding or utter disregard for other people's viewpoints.
But alas, you are free to believe your contrived hypotheticals of perfect knowledge contribute to anything other than your own satisfaction.
You're not really in an ideal position to be complaining about the 'other side' not answering critiques.
You are 'refusing to answer' the fairly simple question about what makes vaccination, as method of avoiding hospitalisation, one worthy of use in triage judgements but not any other method, such as general health, safety precautions, and non-pharmaceutical interventions.
It's not more proximate, nor more closely correlated, nor more prevalent as a cause...so why have you singled it out as the sole arbiter of someone's degree of responsibility taken?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/587458
You make the mistaken assumption that it is "their wealth" which we force them to part with under the threat of violence. We could spend time tracing ill-gotten gains and the morality of the laws and actions that allowed for wealth accumulation in the first place, or we could just discuss the morality of making people contribute to the society which allowed them, by our good graces and forbearance, to obtain the wealth they have. Yeah, let's do that.
Side note: I hope NOS and everyone else understands that when we say "beds" we mean the room that the bed goes in and all the kit doc needs to treat, including staff.
Yes. And? What planet have you been living on?
I suppose we might then ask who, if any, ain't doing theirs? Say, are deniers, contrarians, distrust-spreaders, dissidents, conspiracy theorists, etc, guilty in some sense? Failure to learn from history?
[tweet]https://mobile.twitter.com/michaelharriot/status/1430292090525736969[/tweet]
[sup]
• Who are the anti-vaxxers? Here's what we know — and how they got there in the first place (Mar 27, 2019)
• After Truth: Disinformation and the Cost of Fake News (Mar 19, 2020)
• From students to politicians, many smart people have fallen for dangerous lies spread about the new coronavirus. Why? And how can you protect yourself from misinformation? (Apr 6, 2020)
• Study Finds More COVID-19 Cases Among Viewers Of Fox News Host Who Downplayed Pandemic (May 4, 2020)
• The Anti-Vaccine Movement in 2020 (May 22, 2020)
• The pandemic exposes human nature: 10 evolutionary insights (Jun 9, 2020)
• The Masks Masquerade (Jun 14, 2020)
• Mistrust of the medical profession and higher disgust sensitivity predict parental vaccine hesitancy (Sep 2, 2020)
• Many COVID-19 patients insist ‘it’s not real’ until they die, nurse says (Nov 17, 2020)
• 15 Infuriating Stories About Doctors Who Had To Diagnose A COVID-19 Denier With The Coronavirus (Apr 21, 2021)
• States with low vaccination numbers had Covid-19 case rates last week 3 times higher than others where people are fully vaccinated (Jul 12, 2021)
• The YouTubers who blew the whistle on an anti-vax plot (Jul 25, 2021)
• White Evangelicals Resist Covid-19 Vaccine Most Among Religious Groups (Jul 28, 2021)
• Ben Shapiro’s Advice for Resisting America’s ‘Authoritarian Moment’ (Aug 2, 2021)
• CNN tracked down a super-spreader of Covid-19 misinformation. See how he reacted (Aug 5, 2021)
• Unvaccinated adults driving COVID-19 case increase in Canada (Aug 10, 2021)
• This Woman Secretly Runs One of the World's Biggest Anti-Vax Websites From Her House (Aug 12, 2021)
• Why the Church Keeps Getting Covid Wrong (Aug 16, 2021)
• Parent rips face mask off teacher in confrontation at school, Texas district says (Aug 17, 2021)
• Covid-19: Lockdown not enough to stop Australia’s delta variant crisis (Aug 17, 2021)
• Anti-Vaxxers Go Off the Rails at San Diego County Meeting: ‘Heil Fauci’ (Aug 17, 2021)
• An Alabama doctor watched patients reject the coronavirus vaccine. Now he’s refusing to treat them. (Aug 18, 2021)
• The FDA Is Begging You Not to Take Horse Dewormer for Covid-19 (Aug 21, 2021)
• Almost 5,000 Covid cases linked to Cornish music and surf festival (Aug 23, 2021)
[/sup]
I think he just wants to punish people for being unvaccinated.
:up:
Asked and answered, at least by me.
Despite your cherry-picked press clippings, the group you describe are not one homogeneous legion. Attempts to lump everyone who disagrees with the party line in with the tinfoil hat brigade are just political. There's a convenient bunch of loonies who can be called on to besmirch any view you don't like by association. Should we do the same with climate change? Environmental issues? I could definitely rustle up some seriously dodgy hippies who are all in for those sorts of causes. Shall we make the serious climate scientists look like fools by associating them with a few tree-hugging children of Gaia?
Is this the direction you really want public debate to head?
Yes, it seems odd. There was a question a few years back (decades possibly?) about doing a similar thing with smokers and lung cancer - I don't know if you recall, there was a lot of chatter in the medical ethics journals? The call then was to free up resources by refusing to treat smokers who hadn't stopped smoking in spite of doctor's warning them too. It fell by the wayside for much the same reasons - is a fit, recently quit, 20-a-day guy more or less responsible for their condition than an unfit, overweight, 40-a-day guy who gave up ten years ago? The judgements required were just too complicated and prone to abuse.
I have answered it, that you disagree is in no way, shape or form about me avoiding the question. My pretty straightforward questions get ignored or the subject is changed. But for your benefit, let me repeat it. It's about causality. Being fat isn't a conditio sine que non for requiring an IC bed after a COVID infection. But for those people that if they were infected by COVID that then would require an IC bed not getting a vaccination is a conditio sine que non, because they would've avoided the IC bed in 99% of cases.
Especially in light of the fact that healthcare is a privilege and the money that goes into it is rationed and the care itself as a result too, it's perfectly adequate that if the prevailing consensus of practitioners in that system is to get a vaccination that not getting one might have consequences in decisions how to ration care under specific circumstances.
In other words, I would consider it entirely ethical to prioritise care for those people who adhere to generally accepted advice as opposed to those that don't.
Got a fat patient as a result of diet choices and a normal proportioned person? All things being equal, if the choice needs to be made, by all means, go for the normal proportioned person.
And I have discussed this with medical practitioners here in the Netherlands and they aren't averse to the idea. How about treating a 90-year old woman with heart surgery to provide her a new heart valve? She takes up resources too. Do it or not do it?
I'll repeat, healthcare isn't a right, it's a privilege. When deciding who gets that privilege, people's behaviours can be taken into account and I think they should. I've argued we should, under limited circumstances, and think legal jurisprudence has sufficient and detailed enough doctrine in the area of causality and negligence to make a workable protocol for it that results in a fair distribution of limited resources.
I hadn't heard of that, but yes, tobacco abuse produces a wide range of problems.
Neither is being unvaccinated.
Quoting Benkei
Now you're changing the question.
With obesity it was - of the set {all fat people} do a high enough proportion require a hospital bed upon infection with covid to make being a member of the set a conditio sine que non?
A like question with vaccination should be - of the set {all unvaccinated people} do a high enough proportion require a hospital bed upon infection with covid to make being a member of the set a conditio sine que non?
The answer is clearly no.
You changed it to - of the set {all hospitalised unvaccinated} would their hospitalisation have been avoided had they vaccinated?
The like comparison with obesity would be - of the set {all hospitalised obese} would their hospitalisation have been avoided had they reduced their bmi?
In all likelihood, yes. 90% of hospitalisations are associated with comorbidities, so if this particular patient's comorbidity is obesity there's a very strong chance their hospitalisation would have been avoid without it.
Nope, those percentages are much lower than 90% which is why it's not the same and, moreover, these are lifestyle choices that predate Covid, meaning they weren't culpable choices to begin with.
Right, and that wasn't claimed, except there are a few influential voices operating against ...
Quoting jorndoe
... hence asking ...
Quoting jorndoe
... which you failed to respond to for some reason.
Forgot to ask if you voted. Please do. (y)
[sub]
• Psychosocial and demographic characteristics relating to vaccine attitudes in Australia (Aug 21, 2018)
• Naomi Oreskes: ‘Discrediting science is a political strategy’ (Aug 21, 2018)
• Religious affiliation and COVID-19-related mortality: a retrospective cohort study of prelockdown and postlockdown risks in England and Wales (Jan 6, 2021)
• How Capitalist Competition Hobbled the COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout (Jan 6, 2021)
• Which US demographics are more likely to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine? (Jan 11, 2021)
• Persuasion, not coercion or incentivisation, is the best means of promoting COVID-19 vaccination (Jan 26, 2021)
• Education is a bigger factor than race in desire for COVID-19 vaccine (Feb 25, 2021)
• Negative Affectivity, Authoritarianism, and Anxiety of Infection Explain Early Maladjusted Behavior During the COVID-19 Outbreak (Feb 25, 2021)
• COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance: Correlates in a nationally representative longitudinal survey of the Australian population (Mar 24, 2021)
• New Tool Tracks Vaccination and Vaccine Hesitancy Rates Across Geographies, Population Groups (Apr 14, 2021)
• COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Demographic Factors, Geographic Patterns, and Changes Over Time (May 19, 2021)
• Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Socio-Demographics, Co-Morbidity, and Past Experience of Racial Discrimination (May 27, 2021)
• KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: Profile Of The Unvaccinated (Jun 11, 2021)
• SARS-CoV-2 Delta VOC in Scotland: demographics, risk of hospital admission, and vaccine effectiveness (Jun 14, 2021)
• Alberta's COVID-19 vaccination rates tied to levels of formal education, data shows (Jun 15, 2021)
• COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in a Representative Education Sector Population in Qatar (Jun 18, 2021)
• Biden didn't "fall short" of July 4 vaccination goal — he was sabotaged by Republican trolls (Jul 6, 2021)
• EDITORIAL: Vaccine hesitancy cuts across many demographics (Jul 20, 2021)
• As White Evangelical Vaccine Refusal Reminds Us, Sometimes Religion is the Problem (Jul 29, 2021)
• Companies mulling charging unvaccinated employees more for health coverage: report (Aug 14, 2021)
• NBC News poll shows demographic breakdown of the vaccinated in the U.S. (Aug 24, 2021)
[/sub]
Original paper: Risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolism after covid-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 positive testing: self-controlled case series study (Aug 27, 2021)
News article: Blood clot risk greater after Covid infection than after vaccination (Aug 27, 2021)
Oh, and just in case I'm included in those 'others' who apparently refuse to answer your simple question, the answer is whomever arrived first. Any other choice would put some factor above saving lives as a priority. You try your best to save the life in the situation presented to you, if the first situation means there's no more vents, then those are the new circumstances in which your efforts must be assessed.
Quoting Benkei
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765184?guestAccessKey=906e474e-0b94-4e0e-8eaa-606ddf0224f5&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=042220
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/928531
Your sources?
Quoting Benkei
Of course they were. Covid's relationship to obesity is not a surprise. We knew obesity presented an increased risk of hospitalisation in general. What's more, an additional 3% of the American population became obese during the crisis.
That was my response. The 'deniers' are not a homogeneous legion so are not either guilty or not as one entity.
Talking of questions unanswered...
Quoting Isaac
That's the prevailing idea and it's wrong.
Yes. With such a hugely divergent risk profile in this disease, any avoidance of specific cohort studies is negligent.
Except it wasn't a response to the inquiry posed. (n)
Just FYI, I'm not likely to change topics in the middle of this topic (e.g. two wrongs don't make a right). You'll have to open a new post for that. (y)
Could you give your perspective on whether healthcare should be allotted according to the choices a person has made? So that if resources were tight, vaccinated people would be prioritized over non-vaccinated?
Does that sound ethical to you?
I think you've misunderstood how discussion works. Either the matter of it's wrongness can be established (or at least furthered) dialectically, in which case you need to answer the points I've raised, or it can't, in which case this is little more than an opinion poll and you've already had your go.
Quoting jorndoe
Quoting jorndoe
...was the question asked. So...
Quoting Isaac
Is exactly an answer to it.
That paper seems to be saying that the risk is greater after vaccination and a positive test for covid than it is with vaccination alone. In other words it seems the subjects were all vaccinated individuals. Am I missing or misunderstanding something?
If you show up in the ER from a car wreck and you weren't wearing your seatbelt, end of the line for you!
Typically a patient is triaged based upon the seriousness of their condition and not upon the cold demands of justice. It's for that reason a doctor would doubtfully wish to exit the medical arena and enter the legal or ethical one and decide who should get treatment based upon some non-medical reason.
It's for that reason (in part), I'm in favor of requiring vaccines. We live in a society that, for better or worse, does not force you to sleep in the bed you made. If someone, through all his stupid decisions, finds himself drunk, broke, and beaten in a gutter, the same ambulance that would swoop me or you up is going to swoop him up, and he's going to be taken in for the same treatment as you or I will.
So, no, I don't think it's ethical to ask doctors to triage based upon non-medical reasons, and I don't think it's ethical to put yourself in a position where you are going to require greater use of limited public resources when you could so easily have done otherwise.
My response is to some degree pragmatic because you asked what should be done, and I said what will be done, regardless of the should. We're just not going to prioritize the responsible people over the irresponsible people in the ER. The responsible people are going to have to accept that they receive their positive comeuppance every day other than while in the ER with better jobs, better relationships, and overall better existences.
While I agree with your sentiment about the extremes, I think cloaking them in moderation is no better. Once you pierce the veil of high-sounding rhetoric, appeals to outside minority peers who can speak the language, start blaming subordinate proximate causes, or failures to abide subordinate recommendations, you find the extreme that will not stand the light of expert analysis.
Anyway, I've shot my wad on this subject, I have to run to town, and I cede the floor to you, Isaac. I'm sorry you won't pitch in and help you people out. (Secretly I wonder if you might not be right, in that this might all be a way to thin the herd and the vax is getting in the way. In that case, I should take a seat. It's just the "Tomorrowland" in me that keeps trying.)
Adios.
When Trump first tried to misappropriate the moniker of “War Time President” he said we were at war with an invisible enemy. He was right, but the misappropriation came in his failure to fulfill his role, Warp Speed notwithstanding. Anyway, the minute he said that, a cornucopia of analogy flooded my mind, from protesters and supporters in the rear, to front line troops, to generals, and armchair generals, to pundits, legislators and the President. You can use your own imagination.
Regardless, I do liken a pandemic to a war. While one might question who they are in this scenario, and whether they view Covid as an enemy, I was lately thinking about this discussion of the prioritization of risk. So, I asked my old Combat Corpsman what the principles were that they operated under. To paraphrase, this is what he said:
I don’t recall a prioritization, but in general a corpsman takes care of his Marines first.
We are obligated to provide care to wounded enemy prisoners as well.
In the DOD during combat operations, we are obligated to triage those patients which will ensure victory in battle first.
So, we’re fighting the battle, and I’m treating a Marine who’s hopeless and who will not help us win the battle. I should leave him alone.
If treating marine will give him back in the fight, he should be my highest priority.
It’s just an analogy. But you can consider it. Who is who in this pandemic? You’d think a virus and those who aid and abet it might get short shrift. To throw all the shit back in the Republican’s face from the spin up to Iraq: “You don’t support the troops?” “You question a President in a time of war?” “Don’t spit on the troops.”
Karma, bitches.
I responded to this just above, and I'd add in the equation that justice does not demand that the consequences of bad behavior naturally flow or bear direct connection with the bad act. That is to say it is not just to require my son to walk with no shoes in the snow because he forgot them at home. Maybe he will have an extra chore or the like, but frostbite is not a just dessert just because it's a naturally occurring dessert.
So, applying the same logic, I would not demand you lose priority for the vent based upon your bad behavior of vaccine refusal, but I could certainly see insurance refusals, hospital surcharges, or other penalties short of having your medical care altered.
Welsh teen in hospital with Covid targeted online by anti-vaxxers (Aug 31, 2021)
(y)
By the way, some concerns about pregnancy have been raised. Don't know current status, can't keep up with it all, workday tomorrow.
Quoting Isaac
Nay, just running with your narrative. (Sorry, not going repeat.)
Questionable humor? A grumpy ol' philosopher I know out Ohio way, that spends much time dishing out grades (correlates with grumpy?), posted this one... :)
Says "in the same population", and 19.6M AstraZeneca + 9.5M Pfizer = 29.1M vaccinated, with 1.8M infected. I think. So, all 29.1M had 1 vaccination, and 1.8M out of those were infected, i.e. 27.3M uninfected. And then something in the range of 10 times more cases of clotting for the infected.
But it's not entirely clear. The paper says (in ever so many words) that there's an increased risk of clotting shortly after the 1st vaccination (albeit small) without clarifying what the comparison here is. I guess it's assumed the unvaccinated uninfected has no or insignificant cases of clotting. Or something.
There's a whole lot of stuff about the timing, which might be of some relevance as well.
In summary, infection ups chances of clotting noticeably.
But it's not the same logic because there's nothing barring you to return home and get the shoes. In the examples I give, a decision has to be made. Both patients need care equally. Justice isn't the first consideration in triage but it certainly is one of them. Other things being equal, I think the decision not to get vaccinated and requiring a scarce resource like an IC bed or a vent as a result of that decision and when other people need it just as badly can and should be taken into account.
And while we're at it. In the Netherlands we have universal healthcare and there are serious debates about whether to treat certain patients due to limited resources. The anesthesiologists I mentioned recently took a minority position to treat a 90-year old woman for heart surgery. Everybody else argued not to do it, too old, much too likely to develop complications from the procedure and likely not to fully recover. He argued differently because in her particular case she had never had need for extended care or other operations.
In retrospect she did develop complications and kept an IC bed occupied for 5 weeks.
Do we provide care or not? She did take up resources that could've been used by others. At what point has a person lived a full life that, as part of our decision to ration care, we say we don't treat you for heart issues anymore? These are serious ethical questions that have been an issue here for a decade now because it's becoming increasing clear, with an aging population, our healthcare system cannot indefinitely provide all care needed. These questions don't involve a "first come, first serve" solution or "who has the most acute need".
It's the same about whether to insure extremely expensive drugs for very rare diseases. Both these issues put the system under stress.
And that brings me back to the point I've made before: healthcare is a privilege not a right and we can and should establish requirements as to when you get that privilege. This is not an issue when the system isn't under stress, then everybody gets care and we can prioritise based on need but if the healthcare system is under stress other considerations can and should be taken into account.
And clearly then, those who do not receive such a priviledge should not have to pay?
Payment is not the only requirement for access to a privilege. Meanwhile, in the real world, its actually those people that don't need care who effectively pay for the people who do need care. Otherwise the system wouldn't be affordable.
Quoting Tzeentch
Total mischaracterisation of other people's positions.
I've given enough arguments and given real life examples of what the Dutch healthcare system is already struggling with that have laid bare that this approach cannot continue. It's not sustainable so they are looking at it differently. The prevailing position will go the way of the dinosaurs.
I don't disagree that a system of free healthcare to all, regardless of the extent to which preventative measures have been adopted, is unsustainable. I disagree with the ideologically motivated selection of just one such measure (vaccination) and one point of intervention (triage).
If preventative measures are needed to sustain an effective healthcare system, then such measures should be based on normal principles of autonomy, fairness, justice, normaleficence, and fidelity.
Prophylactic medicine is way down the list in meeting all those criteria. It's an external biological alteration, so compromises bodily autonomy right off the bat. It's produced by private corporations, so neither fairness (in terms of access), nor fidelity can be guaranteed, nor are even very likely given their track record. It's a constantly changing intervention (in terms of both composition and batch production of the same formula) so cannot guarantee normaleficence. It's necessity is not a given (one might have not needed it), so the consequences of not taking it are not necessarily just (they do not derive from the action). Also, it's incredibly inefficient as it's a cost in itself, compared to other interventions (such as banning smoking) which are free.
In all, whilst I think vaccination has a few merits as a choice of preventative measure to bolster a flagging health system, it's knocked out of the water by a half dozen other far more suitable candidates, all of which are being ignored solely for ideological reasons - they represent aspects of a lifestyle we've come to be used to, and, of course, one of the most profitable and influencial industries the world has ever seen makes it's entire living out of people getting sick. The last thing it wants are solutions which prevent that.
If I can take your lead in declaring things to 'obvious', it seems 'obvious' to me that failing to even meet a baseline of normal bodily health and safety is causally prior to failing to take preventative action such choices might make necessary.
You are not forced under threat of violence to go to a restaurant.
You're forced under threat of violence to stay out.
A couple of things from this:
When the US was debating universal public healthcare, one of the things that derailed it was the Republican argument that there would be "death committees" that would be charged with determining who was provided care and who wasn't. The Democrats responded that was hyperbolic and inaccurate. As you've stated it though, you seem to accept that some government accounting committee would in fact intervene in the decision of who gets what health care and who does not. That is, you seem to be generally agreeing there will be and should be such death committees. That seems to me a hard strike against public health care ever coming to exist in the US if it were to move forward in the way you've suggested.
The way I see it is far more moderate though. I would expect at some level decisions have to be made regarding protecting limited resources. If we have but one heart and 5 who need it, we do need to have some criteria for determining who gets it. The question is what the criteria should be for making that determination. I would limit the question to the medical issues, such as what is the prognosis of this procedure on person A versus person B. If you find yourself a in true to life situation where providing care to A will mean B will go without (and I don't think your example of the 90 year actually was that), then you would need to look at potential outcomes when determining who gets the care.
What we should be forbidden to consider are factors surrounding the ethical worth of the two individuals, where the good hearted humanitarian gets the heart but Ebenezer Scrooge is left to die or where the prostitute is overlooked, but the community leader gets the nod, or, more pointedly, where the vaccinated gets care and the unvaccinated gets denied. We also should be forbidden to use the operating room as a means to advance social justice or the like, where certain historically disadvantaged groups are provided special (or reduced) privilege. Should that occur (and when you opened the door to looking at justice as a means to divvy up care, I think you do that), that would create a significant ethical problem for me. It would also create a pragmatic problem because it would be politically rejected and it would likely unravel the system, with people creating all sorts of work arounds and refusals to participate.
The point here is that if we have less beds than we do sick people, we need to triage those beds to those who are most in need, as opposed to weighing the ethical value of the people before us and then assigning beds.
The support for my ethical argument is that I hold to the proposition that all people are of infinite value, rejecting the idea that people become ethically devalued under any circumstance. I'd also add that even if I did allow that some do become worth less through their behavior (which I don't), I would still believe that making the determination of how reduced their value now is is well beyond the determination of any committee.
Just to summarize, should we need to assign health care due to limited resources, those decisions are to be made from need considerations, not from justice considerations. Let's leave the politics out of the OR.
Great: I will frame it as a capitalist, free-market, arm's-length, voluntary transaction that is apparently the only language that you speak: If you don't want to purchase what we are selling, quit using our product. Leave. If you don't want to buy, go live in Afghanistan or Somalia. But if you live here, you will be forced, under threat of violence, to pay for what you took. Otherwise, you are thief in the candy store, trying to steal what society is providing at price set by society. Don't like our price? Tough. Go shop elsewhere or don't buy.
Don't like that we charge you more than him? Tough. Our house, our rules. He doesn't order as much, or as extravagantly as you do and he doesn't take up the space. And no, we are not going to treat you like a king just for coming into our store and honoring us with your exalted presence and your tight-wad money. In America, we tell kings to go fuck themselves. Ask Georgie boy.
"If you don't like it go away" makes as little sense when said by a state as it does when said by a child's parents.
One key difference is that (good) parents will support their child in gaining indepence and eventually will relinquish their authority over it.
Maybe if the execution weren't so perfect, but holy shit that's dead on! (I work in retail, in Georgia, and have been the recipient of multiple lectures about masks from my customers. On at least one occasion, the lecturer also had a piece on his hip, which spices things up.)
Bull Shit. You can kill yourself or go to Somalia or swim to Cuba or whatever.
Quoting Tzeentch
So you are a child and the state is your parent? That flies in the face of your freedom we honor.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well, if you're going to use that analogy, then, by the time you can pay taxes, leave. We relinquish authority over you. That doesn't mean you get to run wild in the mall and take what you want without paying for it. There is a world out there beyond mommy and daddy that isn't charged with taking care of you unless it chooses to do so.
"If you don't like it here just kill yourself" holds even less merit.
Quoting James Riley
A citizen, just like a child, is put under an inescapable authority involuntarily.
Quoting James Riley
Indeed it does.
Quoting James Riley
Except that citizenship isn't simply relinquished, but even then, this would only make sense if states gave individuals an option to opt out - they don't. They spend the entire duration of a citizen's formative years to make it more dependent of the state - like a mother afraid that her child will one day leave her.
Well said. Excellent points all around, @Hanover.
BS. The suicide rate is off the charts. People do it all the time because they don't want to pay the price of life.
Quoting Tzeentch
And the parents get to choose which child needs help and for how long. When a child reaches majority and doesn't want to contribute, they can get the hell out of the house. We raised you up right, you can work and pay taxes. Get to it, or get out. This is a family here and if you don't want to be a part of it, if you don't want to help your little sister, or help pay for her education, leave.
Quoting Tzeentch
So leave. No one is stopping you. Sell your shit, pack your bags and leave. Ever heard of "ex-pats"? The world is full of them. "There's a race of men that don't fit in, A race that can't stay still; So they break the hearts of kith and kin, And they roam the world at will." R. Service.
Quoting Tzeentch
Citizenship can be simply relinquished. Do it. Get out. States DO give individuals an option to opt out. There's the door. But if you mean by "opt out" you get to avail without paying for it, or you get to decide how much and what for, then you are in the wrong house. What states don't do is give you the right to avail for nothing, unless we find you in need of help. The only help you need is 1. empathy; 2. personal responsibility; 3. a sense of civic duty; 4. love for your family that raised you up when you were weak, taught you, made you strong enough to care for your brothers and sisters like a real man does. But you want to bail? Fine, get out.
Oh, and P.S. When you pack your bags and leave, don't take any of our shit with you and pay your tax bill before you go. Otherwise we will claw back. (speaking to all the 1% ers who try to hide in tax free havens around the world after pulling yourself up with our bootstraps)
Ah yes. Suicide - a simple matter of weighing the costs against the benefits and making a rational decision based on that.
Didn't I recall you posting something about caring for others a while back?
Quoting James Riley
What you describe is failed parenting. Parents who resent their children for not growing up the way they envisioned. They fail to understand that the child never asked to be theirs, and that children shouldn't be had to fulfill the parents hopes and fantasies in the first place. It is their failure.
But if your point was that bad parenting exists, this I already knew.
The idea that a parent can force existence upon their child, and then present them with a list of things they expect of them holds no moral weight. It's nonsense. (And similarly for citizens and governments)
A parent can always reach for the belt, and force compliance - additional confirmation of their failure. (And similarly for citizens and governments)
Quoting James Riley
Yes, and this option is no more tenable than telling a child to run away from home if they don't like their parents.
You sound a lot like a failed parent "It is not my fault you don't enjoy the circumstances I imposed on you" - or is it? Of course it is. It is entirely the parent's fault, and their responsibility.
Also, you seem to be getting awfully personal. Let me assure you I enjoy my time within the state's boundaries just fine for now. But that doesn't stop me from considering the immorality of this whole ordeal.
Read Hanover's responses. He puts it better than I'm able to. Healthcare is not where we administer justice. That would be a path to a horrendous ethical fuckup.
You're the one who finds life's rules not to your liking.
Quoting Tzeentch
You did. I don't find you the suicidal type. I see you as a disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish, young tough guy who wants to suck down all the benefits of society without having to pay for them. People like that don't commit suicide. You just need a little tough love. Go out and wander the world on your own two feet, come back and tell us what you learned.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's failed parenting to raise kids who don't contribute or want to contribute. So yeah, we can agree on that. We've not only turned out kids who want to "opt out" but they want all the benefits too. And worse yet, they want a hand in the teaching of their siblings to hate their parents demand that they contribute.
Quoting Tzeentch
You didn't ask to be ours, so get out if you don't like it. You don't want to help out, leave. But don't expect us to pay you for our having fucked up and brought you into this life, failing to learn simple lessons of playing ball. You can only blame your parents for so long. You can't be an entitled little twit all your life.
Quoting Tzeentch
That is why we leave you with an option to quit. Any time you don't like our house, our rules, leave. Life is tough. We don't regret bringing you into it. We love seeing you grow and learn life's lessons. It's part of growing up. You'll see when you mature. All you need is to be punched in the face, hard, at least once. Well, maybe more than once if your head is really hard, like mine.
Quoting Tzeentch
No one is reaching for the belt. Leave. We only reach for the belt if you continue sucking our tit without playing by our rules.
Quoting Tzeentch
LOL! I can't tell you how many times I ran away from home before I ran away for good at 14. Worked, hard, paid taxes, availed myself of government benefits, like Job Corps and the Marine Corps, and the G.I. Bill, continuing to work hard and pay taxes all along, got schooled, advanced degree, made a shit ton of money and guess what? I paid taxes all along. I got punched in the mouth, many times. But I also learned that not everyone can do what I did and I don't begrudge their needing help. I don't decide to not help 500 just because there might be one fraudster in there milking the system. Nor do I begrudge people who were smarter than me and didn't have to learn the hard way but who were raised to play ball and help out.
You are right that we failed as families and government so long as we have entitled little shits blaming parents for bringing them into this world and then demanding an opt out free ride. But that's okay. Life will come home, hard. Unless, of course, you are a silver spoon little bitch like Trump who never once in his entire life got punched in the mouth, hard. But dealing with dishonorable cowards and liars is also part of life. He's just doing his part. Why anyone would fall in line behind him, I'll never know. Another example of societies failure I guess. But the failure is not on those who willingly come to the rules of the house, either cognitively or intuitively. If it's their fault, then it's only because they didn't punch the bully who needed to be punched.
Quoting Tzeentch
Your analogy, the family. I thought it was awfully paternalistic and contrary to what I perceive as your bent. But I ran with it.
Quoting Tzeentch
I bet you do. Now pay up, and quit whining about what you perceive to be the immorality of having to pay.
Quoting frank
Justice has nothing to do with it. As William Mony said before he shot Little Bill in the face, "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." It's about winning the war. If you don't think we are in a war, or that you are on the front line of that war, fine. Make it harder on yourself and the rest of society.
Quoting frank
You just described war: A "horrendous ethical fuckup." Now tell that to the enemy and those who aid and abet. This reminds me of M.A.S.H. I'm sure Hawkeye, et al, had empathy for the enemy. They may have even had an episode that discusses exactly what we are talking about here (not just treating the enemy, because I remember that one, but prioritization). Anyway, it's just a T.V. show but I always did respect those guys and I think the script came from real life experiences in Korea.
Oh well, it would not be self discipline if you were to help me exercise it. I must extricate myself from this debate with my own shear will power. Let's see how I do. :lol:
This is projection, I suspect.
Page-long personal attacks don't impress me, so I would spare myself the effort in the future.
That you were in the Marine Corps doesn't surprise me one bit. I liked the people I met there, but their worldviews were simplistic. Perhaps a simplistic worldview is required to commit acts of violence with the approval of one's own conscience - until that simple worldview comes back to haunt them.
To bring it back to the subject matter, your essential argument seems to be "If you don't like it get out."
My response is twofold:
- My liking or disliking does not change the nature of things. That individuals do not choose to be born or the society they live in, is a fact. That taxation is to force people to part with what they perceive to be theirs by threat of violence is a fact.
I guess by saying "If you don't like that, go away" you are agreeing with those points.
- Your stance is akin to asking a slave that if they don't like their slaveowners, why don't they swim back across the ocean to where they came from.
I think I need not explain to you why this doesn't make the slightest sense from a moral standpoint. If that is your standard, it is your standard, but then you'll have to apply it consistently.
Quoting Hanover
It is obviously hyperbolic. Care is, at all times, rationed. There's decisions on how many beds, how many doctors, how many nurses, how many vents, CAT-scans, etc. etc. made all the time. Should we spend 2 million EUR per dose of Zolgensma?
And let's not pretend the private insurance companies treat this any differently. How many US insurance companies cover Zolgensma? And if they do, how much does the premium go up making it unavailable for most? (I'd say there is another issue here where a lot of public research and development goes into what is eventually privately patented so we should be wondering about the whole pharmaceutical setup to begin with, but totally different discussion).
The important difference with universal healthcare and private healthcare insurance is that the decisions on what to cover isn't a cost-benefit analysis with respect to profit for private companies but instead about an efficient distribution of cost and effective care.
So if we must use the hyperbole, I'd rather have a death committee I can vote about and politically influence than one that will randomly change my coverage as its shareholders require to make a profit that I cannot influence.
Quoting Hanover
This is a misrepresentation of my argument. I'm not arguing about the moral worth of a person, I'm arguing about taking into account culpable behaviour that contributes to the hospitalization. In a car accident where there's a victim and a speedster and only one operating room available and operating one means the other dies, I'd save the victim first. Why? Because the perpetrator has culpably contributed to his own hospitalisation. That lowers the responsibility on others to save him. I don't find this an ethically difficult position to hold.
Yawn.
For taxation to be theft, there must be a right to pre-tax income. Legally, this is clearly not the case.
A moral right to pre-tax income can only be said to exist if earned income results in a fair and equitable payment for labour rendered. This too is false. Market circumstances are not concerned with the moral worth of labour or who needs the job the most or who is most deserving of fulfilling the assignment. So a moral right to pre-tax income is incoherent.
Since no rights are infringed, there's no theft.
In other words, your statement is laden with so many unspoken assumptions it can be dismissed as the opinion of an uneducated layman who simply doesn't like paying taxes.
Approaching the matter from a legal standpoint holds no moral significance. The state deciding it has rights to things just like a feudal ruler decides it deserves a share of the farmer's grain.
This is followed up by an opinion of what belongs to who - it is a perception. As I said, taxation is to force individuals to part with what they perceive to be theirs under threat of violence.
If you accept that opinions can justify violence, then there is no moral framework, only might makes right.
Of course, some are completely fine with that, but only for as long as they agree with those opinions. That is hypocrisy.
What's the moral basis for claiming you have a moral right to pre-tax income if moral considerations are entirely absent from market functioning? There isn't one. When's the last time a discount on bread was given for the hungry? That the best and most capable, and therefore most deserving, person gets paid the most is the exception to the rule. There's so many reasons why this is the case and why the market mechanism doesn't result in moral outcomes that this should be obvious. Please let me know if your imagination is so stunted that this needs an exposition for your educational benefit.
The right to income arises within the framework and context of existing social systems as embedded in society which cannot be separated from its legal framework because that supports and upholds the socio-economic framework through various laws such as enforcing the terms and conditions of agreements through courts, policing frauds, setting standards etc. etc. That same system requires you to pay taxes; you cannot claim a right provided by society on the one hand and deny the obligations that come with it.
The issue arises when one uses that opinion as a justification for violence. Because if one permits themselves to use violence based on their opinion, then one permits others to do the same. Who gets to impose their opinion on others? The person with the largest capacity for violence - might makes right.
As I said, many people are fine with this, but only for as long as they agree with the opinions that are being imposed. That is hypocrisy.
Second, you're so stuck in wanting to disagree with me it creates a spontaneous inability to read on your part. I've not argued might makes right anywhere nor does it logically follow from my arguments. I've merely demonstrated that there can be no theft because the right to pre-tax income is morally and legally incoherent.
In other words, your statement doesn't logically hold and therefore is a false belief.
You are responding to me, not the other way around.
Quoting Benkei
Yes, it does.
You have an opinion about what belongs to who and use it to justify taxation. Taxation relies on threats of violence.
Now lets say someone else disagrees with you. What should stop them from using their opinions to justify violence against you?
So you're not opposed to taxation by PAYE-type systems, only invoiced ones? The solution seems simple, have the government take the tax portion of the wage packet before it's given to you.
Alternatively, they could just take it directly from your bank account, or break into your house when you're out and take cash.
No threat of violence is necessary.
No, no need. The government can just take it back.
This will take us maybe too far afield because I don't want to turn this into a debate over the virtues of capitalism versus socialism, but, suffice it to say that even in a purely profit driven environment, a business entity must remain focused upon supplying services based upon the demand if it wants to realize profit. That is, an insurer can't expect to have subscribers if it excludes benefits for expected illnesses.
But back to what's interesting here:
Quoting Benkei
Let's start with the recognition that you are advocating for a radical departure from the current standard. You are asking that when intake nurses and doctors take patient histories that their purpose go beyond arriving at the best means of medical care, but you're asking that they perform some sort of inquiry into culpability for the patient's current condition. How far you wish to take that is the question for the slippery slope, as in, do we limit it to detecting perpetrators versus victims for the specific illness that has brought that patient in that day or do we do full assessments of the person to determine their general worthiness for this limited resource? If you wish to limit the inquiry as described, recognize that limitation is policy based, but not principle based, and is therefore arbitrary.
There are obvious pragmatic issues here, as in how are we to make such determinations in a medical care setting, clearly not wishing to have investigators, witnesses, advocates, and judges considering who is culpable and who is not in a room adjacent to the ER, and it's fairly obvious doctors would not have the skill, time, or inclination to engage in the justice administration process.
But pragmatic issues aside, the ethical issues are more pressing. Since this is all hypothetical thought experiment sort of stuff, we can simply erase the pragmatic concerns by inserting King Solomon in every ER, filled with the divine wisdom to immediately and accurately identify who the good are from the bad, the right from the wrong, and the culpable from the victimized. Even under that scenario, I would still object that it is an unethical enterprise.
To bring this point home more clearly I think, I'll remove this from the hypothetical world and take it outside the setting of emergency care, where there are in fact patients who have had full investigations, jury trials, and rounds of appeals and who now sit in prison cells. Ought we afford them less care than others?
A situation in which states have absolute supervision and control of their citizens' wealth reeks of totalitarianism, and I have plenty of objections to that, but even in such a state there need to be laws against avoiding taxation through things like undeclared work and citizens bartering among themselves.
It's not a debate about the virtues of capitalism or socialism but a debate between privatised and universal healthcare. Under the first, you're definitely screwed if you have a rare disease. At least universal healthcare is subject to public debate, instead of board room decisions. Moreover, due to the fact universal healthcare includes more people, the risk mutualisation is spread over a greater number of people. In theory it should be more affordable to also cover rarer diseases. In practice this is proved time and again by the fact both coverage is greater and costs are lower in countries with universal healthcare as opposed to the US, while quality of care is, on average, better too.
Of course, the US has extreme outliers in both directions and the best care available in the world most likely would be in the US. That's the only upside of the profit driven mechanism in the US I can think of.
As I said, universal healthcare makes economic sense.
Quoting Hanover
Are you asking whether prisoners should be afforded less care than others? Then no.
It's only relevant if other triage considerations have already been exhausted (such as, acuteness of the care needed, beneficence and maleficence) and if the information is available whether such a person has contributed to the hospitalisation themselves, then I would use that information and I think it would be ethical to do so.
You've repeatedly initiated discussions towards me. So this is another stupid remark.
The rest of your post, as usual, doesn't contain an argument. I'll ignore you from now on.
It sure does.
And I am also sure that you see it, but don't want to see it.
Meanwhile, we still have to deal with the damn pandemic.
Quoting jorndoe
The mutative nature of SARS-CoV-2 doesn't help. Rhetoric and influential celebrities dishing out poor/irresponsible/unqualified (pseudo)advice doesn't help. Inciting fear/panic doesn't help.
...
Vaccinations (and commonsensical precautions) do.
[sup]
• Number of COVID-19 cases not as concerning as hospital admissions, says Dr. Nathanson (Sep 2, 2021)
[/sup]
Yes, that's right.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, I'd prefer there was some agreement over who owned what, but you seem vehemently opposed to the idea of us coming to such an agreement, so I was proposing a non-violent alternative. We all just take what we think is ours. There'll be an awful lot of back-and-forth, but there needn't be any violence.
Quoting Tzeentch
No, not really, the government could simply spy on people, and if it thinks they've not declared work or income in kind, it just takes what it thinks it's owed.
Quoting Isaac
If there is no law against circumventing the system the government puts in place, you do not think people would try their best at doing just that?
Absolutely.
Because an agreement is what we currently have. The result of our agreement, about who owns what, (for which we used the democratic system) is that the government owns 20% of the pay you take home. You seem to think that, rather than by agreement, you get to decide whatever you think is your property.
Quoting Tzeentch
I'm sure they would, and if the government discover them doing so they could take whatever they think they're owed for such transgressions.
I never agreed to that.
Quoting Isaac
No, I don't think I do.
I haven't shared any opinions about what I believe belongs to who. What I have shared are opinions on the nature of taxation and using opinions to justify violence.
That's some anyway.
For us laymen, could you provide an example of some of those alternative measures?
It's a large death cult which will probably bring everyone down with it.
Oh, so which method of reaching agreement on who owns what do you want? Democracy's no good for you it seems. Consensus perhaps? Would you have us consult each and every person and conclude nothing until all agreed? What should we do about property in the meantime? Back to taking whatever we think is ours?
Quoting Tzeentch
That's not the opinion which would counter the claim. The means by which we, as a society, decide what belongs to whom, is. If not decided simply by what you think you own, not decided by democratic systems either, then by what means?
You think that's a minority group?
When a philosopher explains that killing is immoral, one doesn't ask how one can still cause death without killing.
You ask me how one can forcefully redistribute wealth according to their liking and make people part with what they believe to be theirs without having to resort to violence and my answer is simple: one shouldn't want to.
I didn't ask you that. I asked you how we reach an agreement about what belongs to whom. You said you weren't opposed to agreement, but you don't consider the democratic process to be a suitable means of achieving that. I asked what means you do consider suitable.
I don't know about any we, but when I have a dispute with someone over what belongs to whom, I talk with them and come to an agreement.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Tzeentch
You won't be wanting to take home that portion of your pay that the government believes to be theirs will you?
How do you propose the government talks to each and every person to reach individually tailored agreements as to what belongs to whom?
And what was the outcome of your talk with the government about your disagreement over who owns the taxed portion of your pay?
They likely can't, it probably comes as no surprise that I view governments as inherently problematic and taxation is only a part of that.
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
Governments aren't people.
But I don't have an intention to forcefully take from individuals what they believe to be theirs, no. I reach an agreement with them.
It'd be even harder for every person to come to an agreement with every other. This is just fantasist nonsense.
Quoting Tzeentch
So?
Quoting Tzeentch
So
Quoting Isaac
I don't have to. Only with those people I have a dispute with, which aren't very many at all.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Isaac
A government isn't a thinking being with an opinion about what it believes to be theirs.
Quoting Isaac
I didn't have any talks, as they would obviously be fruitless. Ask your questions frankly, and don't play games.
Everyone who is a beneficiary of taxes then is in dispute with you about who owns the taxed portion of you pay, they all think it's them.
Quoting Tzeentch
No, but people can have an opinion about what belongs to the government.
Quoting Tzeentch
Then how can you declare taxation to be theft? You said that the matter of ownership is resolved by agreement, yet you've engaged in no such agreement with the government. So no agreement has been reached as to who owns what. So on what ground to you claim "theft!"?
Quoting Isaac
These are just abstractions. Show me the individual that wants to dispute what I perceive as my personal belongings and I'll happily have a chat with them.
Quoting Isaac
I never declared that.
Quoting Isaac
Indeed, it has simply been imposed upon me without my say. A regrettable state of affairs as far as I am concerned.
Ridiculous, there are millions of people in your country alone, all of whom have a claim. This idea of managing an entire country by individual agreement is absurd.
Quoting Tzeentch
Not in so many words perhaps, but the taking of property one is not entitled to is theft, so to disown the claim you'd have to either relinquish the property claim or agree the government is within its rights.
Quoting Tzeentch
Why would they ask you, they don't believe it's your property, you've never put any such claim to them, so why on earth would they ask you first?
You said...
Quoting Tzeentch
If I say that people claim a portion of you pay, you ask me to list their names. So why would you expect any more from the government. They simply believe that portion of you pay to be theirs and have not been given any such 'list of names' who make a conflicting claim.
No, I think managing one's disputes through individual agreements is a good way to go about things.
Maybe it is countries that are absurd if they are unable to act in ways that are good.
Quoting Isaac
We haven't spoken about entitlements. We have spoken about perceptions, and if those perceptions conflict, the way I solve it is by individual agreement. Theft is not a part of this idea.
Quoting Isaac
Why would this change the fact that it has been imposed on me without my say?
If your conclusion is, states are incapable of listening to the individual requests of the people it holds power over, I'd simply chalk that up as another flaw of states.
Well then describe the mechanism. The 14 thousand unemployed in your country claim a little of your pay to support them in their unemployment. What do they do? All turn up at your house? Write you a note? His does this system of yours work?
Quoting Tzeentch
'Good' hasn't even been raised yet.
Quoting Tzeentch
The perceptions are of who owns what. Theft is the taking of something owned by another, so if you perceive something to be owned by you it follows that you perceive it's removal to be theft, unless you simply don't know what theft means.
Quoting Tzeentch
It wouldn't. It changes why you'd be at all surprised about that.
I don't have a dispute with those people, as far as I am aware.
Quoting Isaac
Theft concerns a subjective dimension about what rightfully belongs to whom, and that is not relevant to the point I have been making.
Quoting Isaac
My surprise does not change the nature of things.
I don't know why you keep wanting to make this about me: what my solutions are, why I am surprised, etc. Those things aren't relevant at all to the point I am making.
You keep up. The official popular "Get vaccinated, or else!" narrative allows for no consideration as to why a person didn't get vaccinated. Such is also the practice: One is supposed to go to a vaccination site, roll up one's sleeve, and allow oneself to be pricked with a needle. There is no medical exam prior to that, not even people's temperature is measured prior to vaccination.
Back in January, when they first begun vaccinating people, at least in the EU, the standard medical protocol for vaccination was followed: The prospective vaccinee was examined by a doctor, a medical history taken, a covid test done, and only then, after the test came back negative and at the discretion of the doctor, was a person vaccinated. Now, they don't do any of that. They are mass vaccinating people of an unknown medical status, including those who are already infected with covid, but don't know it.
This probably also accounts for many of those vaccinated people who end up needing hospital care for covid. And their numbers are growing.
*sigh*
I'm not against vaccination in general, nor against vaccination against covid in particular.
But I am against vaccinating people of unknown medical status with an experimental medication.
And I am against vaccinating people in epidemiologically unsafe conditions. At mass vaccination sites, but also in smaller vaccination settings, people often don't wear masks, or don't wear them properly, they don't social distance, disinfect. It's a perfect place to spread the virus. And this at a time that is critical for the people there: they can get infected precisely at the time when they should be most cautious and most safe. Ideally, a person should go into sufficiently long quarantene prior to vaccination and afterwards. Some will say that this is not realistic. But then we get the result: covid hospitals filling with vaccinated people. The trend is clear: as more and more people are getting vaccinated in unsafe conditions, more and more vaccinated people end up in hospitals.
Have you read Why Nations Fail?
Some states take on the role of ensuring the property rights of their citizens and mediating the inevitable property disputes.
States that don't do that tend to end up with the strongest just taking whatever the fuck they want, and eventually that's everything, including the state apparatus.
If your view is that this is more or less the only sort of state in the world -- the bully that takes whatever it wants and has guns -- I get that, but Acemoglu and Robinson lay out an empirical case that you can actually see the difference, that it's real, and that it explains why some countries thrive and some don't.
In some EU countries, we have a mixture of privatised and universal healthcare. Here, the bottomline is that health insurance only gets you at the end of the waiting line, which is usually quite long. So you have to pay out of your own pocket to get medical treatment in a timely manner, and of better quality (which makes for a bizzare experience: same clinic, same doctor, but different standards of care, depending on whether you pay out of your own pocket or whether insurance pays).
What this means now in the covid situation is that if you get side effects after vaccination, this gets treated the same way as if those symptoms would have arisen for some unrelated reason and you are expected to wait for months on end to get any tests done at all (unless you pay). Also, on principle, since the covid vaccines are legally still just experimental medication, health insurance does not cover the treatment of side effects.
I think pre-vaccination and post-vaccination medical and insurance programs would help a lot and that more people would decide to get vaccinated if they knew there is a safety net waiting for them post-vaccination, and if they would be better prepared for vaccination (such as by improving their health with doses of vitamin D and B12, and by being tested prior to vaccination and vaccinated only if negative).
But would you include the consideration as to why the person didn't get vaccinated?
In Slovenia, there has for a long time been an unspoken culture of how to proceed in such cases, and people in general were expected to "make the right decision" on their own. Ie. to not be a burden to others.
So, for example, terminal cancer patients have been sent home (if that is an option) with a large dose of opiate analgetics and told that if they took too many of those, they'd die. It's an indirect instruction for suicide and the means for it provided by a doctor. Mind you, euthanasia isn't legal here.
The pandemic has disrupted this culture now, as people are being hospitalized and treated possibly against their will (but which they cannot express due to being unconscious).
But there is certainly no culture of "going to heroic lengths to save everyone" the way one can see it in American films.
There seems to be a limit to how much critical thinking and goodwill people are willing and able to engage in in a time of crisis, and that manifesting more than that and expecting others to reciprocate is, at best, seen as a perverse indulgence, and worse, it can backfire, causing people to be even more narrow-minded.
"Now is not the time to think, now is the time to act!" is the motto many people follow in a time of crisis. Which is feasible enough in the type of immediate crisis situations like when a house is on fire. But not in others, such as a drawn-out pandemic.
I think there is a real risk that people like you and I are doing more harm than good, because it seems that simply if we reply with anything other than "I agree, you have changed my mind, I will now think and do as you want", the others see every post of ours as more opposition to their stance (regardless of what we actually say) and they dig their heels in even more.
It's not news that vaccinating people who are already infected with the pathogen they are being vaccinated against can lead to complications, similar if the infection occurs too soon after vaccination.
That's why, if you intend to go to some tropical country and need to get vaccinated for the diseases there, you have to do it early enough, so that your immune system has the time to create the required antibodies.
The model of vaccination that many people seem to be implicitly operating with is that the covid vaccines are like direct doses of antibodies (so it makes sense to administer them to everyone). As opposed to thinking of the vaccines as substances that trigger and stress the body and make it work hard to produce antibodies, and that this is a process that takes time.
When it comes to climate change, vaccines, COVID, etc — yes. But overall, the general feeling is that government is bought by special interests.
Craving for a solution can get in the way of finding one.
The pandemic occured because people are not cautious and are exploitative toward nature and toward other living beings, humans and animals. And now so many want the pandemic to go away -- so that they can go back to their old non-cautious and exploitative ways ...
There is a lesson here, but it seems it won't be learned.
How would they make you aware?
Quoting Tzeentch
Then just reiterate your point for me, if you will. It's possible I've got lost.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well they seemed so. You appeared to be making a point that governments (particularly their taking of taxes) are bad. For that to make sense there needs to be a viable alternative. Badness is not an objective, absolute scale we can measure things up against. There's no 'badness' rule in Paris setting the standard. Badness is measured against the alternatives. Anything less is just meaningless.
So do you have an alternative? I'm not just going to be a foil for a load of adolescent whinging.
Possibly, but I'm under no illusions that any of this changes people's minds one way or another. It's an exercise in finding out what (and how) people believe, not an exercise in changing it.
Sure. But do you want to know what (and how) people believe just out of curiosity, or do you have a more urgent and useful reason for it?
(Such as tailoring how you speak to people, in order to avoid getting trouble from them.)
I was referring to "...distrustful of everything except their favored media". Do you really think the majority of people trust a variety of sources outside of the favoured media? I'd wager less than a tenth of the people passionate about climate change actually understand climate change, likewise for vaccines, covid, 9/11,...whatever. People pin their flag to the mast of whatever social group seems to fit their identity best and yell the sanctioned scripts from the parapets. Rightness and wrongness are on a separate scale entirely. That the "government is bought by special interests" is no different. Government make a decision favouring the arms manufacturers they're "so obviously in their pocket, it stinks". Government makes a decision in favour of the pharmaceutical industry they're "following the science". It's just roles in a story, evil arms trader, white-coated scientist-hero.
Well, it's my job. But yeah, mostly just out of curiosity.
In my view states are a necessary evil, and the nature of states seems to be that they inherently rely on force, but what you describe seems like one of the more agreeable ways to go about it. Do you know an example of such a state?
Quoting Isaac
Usually when I have a dispute with someone, there is some indication for it. If there is no indication, indeed not even communication or interaction between me and someone I supposedly have a dispute with, it seems like there isn't a dispute?
Quoting Isaac
Taxation is to force individuals to part with what they believe to be theirs under threat of violence.
What belongs to who is a matter of perception - it's an opinion.
Using opinions to justify violence is to invite others to do the same. Who gets to impose their opinion on the other is then a matter of who has the greatest capacity for violence leading to a situation of might makes right.
In fact, I view all use of force against individuals as flawed, and I see states as deeply flawed institutions that are a necessary evil at best. That to me is the essential starting point from which to consider what powers we grant to states.
Quoting Isaac
As I said earlier, I contemplate the nature of things, and whether I have an alternative or not does not change that nature.
If a philosopher tells you that killing is bad, you don't ask him "Well how can I cause death if I cannot kill?" or "How will I continue running my assassination enterprise without killing people?"
You consider his arguments and, if you agree, you stop killing people.
How could you possibly know? Any dispute you lacked indication of you wouldn't know about, so there might be thousands.
Quoting Tzeentch
Well, at the moment beneficiaries of your taxes are indeed getting what they believe is theirs, so they're unlikely to have anything to say. I'm asking how they would raise their complaint with you if you were instead to keep that money for yourself.
Quoting Tzeentch
I've just explained how it isn't. The government can take the money owed without exerting any force or violence at all. So this is just false.
Quoting Tzeentch
As I said, quite clearly I thought, so your ignoring it is quite disingenuous, no violence is necessary. I can just come and take all your stuff while you're out.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yep. Which is the alternative. So what's the alternative to government deciding who owns what?
Around here eligibility was/is advertised, by age way back when. You then sign up online/over phone, read/get instructions (allergies, symptoms, conditions, mask up, the usual), pick a free slot (location, 4m each). Arrive at location observing protocols (distance, the usual), show health card to get your slot (plus short questionnaire again, symptoms, whatever), stay at assigned spot until called, get called in (couple quick questions yet again), disinfectant, shot plus bandaid, told to wait in designated area for 15m (some nurses or whatever are around), leave. Go back online to where you signed up, print out receipt (registered vaccination(s)), also has known symptoms and whatever to look out for once again. Done, go on about your business.
I think that was about it for us, not really that much to it, like assembly lines. That's Atlantic Canada. Done similarly in Denmark.
Pathogens and outbreaks aren't exactly new. Life is lethal. Make the best of it, together.
One concern that's come up is back-to-school. Kids aren't eligible for vaccination.
If by "rely on force" you mean something like, "rely on force to impose the state on people who don't want it", I have nothing to say about such a view. If you mean "rely on force to enforce property rights", then we're talking at least about all advanced democracies.
It's the basic difference discussed in the book: if you live where there's the rule of law and property rights, the state is bigger than any bully that would take your stuff and provides recourse for you; live in a country run by warlords and gangsters and the most you can hope for is that A will defend your interests against B (provide, as they say, "protection"), but that's no guarantee whatsoever that A won't decide eventually to rip you off himself, or make a deal with B that grants B your stuff, or lose out to B in a power struggle, or just forget that he promised to protect you.
The former kind of nations succeed.
A good point, and probably true -- even if you double the numbers, it's still not great.
It comes down, in the end, to who we do trust. Nearly everyone says they distrust government, business, the media, etc. -- for very different reasons. Yet they get their information from somewhere, and have arrived at their opinions somehow. It's almost always the influence of their social environment -- their upbringing, their location, their "culture." We see this in the predictability of rural versus urban polling.
But no matter who you talk to, they will give you their reasons -- even the crazy ones -- and these reasons usually come from something they heard or read, and can be traced to somewhere and someone. Much of the COVID misinformation, for example, was traced to under 20 people on Facebook, Twitter, etc. I forget the number, but it was a large percentage.
I'm not only targeting conservatives, either. I'm always surprised by how little people, who I would say are on the right side of an issue, know about the issue they're "right" about -- whether vaccines or COVID or climate change, as you mentioned. The fact that they happened to be right doesn't say much -- they're ultimately just as ignorant as the anti-vaxxers and climate deniers, they just are lucky enough to have "good taste" in who they trust. They at least deserve credit for that, however.
Give me someone who goes with the overwhelming medical, scientific consensus, and with expertise, over someone who listens to a Facebook meme and YouTube influencer any day of the year. Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters. I'm not even sure it can be taught.
But one happens to be right and the other wrong, regardless of how one arrives at that claim. So while I also think it's a shame people aren't more educated, I also am willing to credit them for have the instinct, intuition, or whatever else was required to end jump making the right choice in the end.
In fact I saw this in poker a lot. Though some people wouldn't be able to give a theory or knowledgable explanation of a decision, they would consistently make the right ones -- and would be winning long-term players.
To say they're just as bad as the losing players because they're both equally ignorant of game theory is a mistake.
Odd that you've only given two choices there. "the overwhelming medical, scientific consensus" vs. "a Facebook meme and YouTube influencer". Do you see those as the only two options?
Quoting Xtrix
But you're neither climate scientist, not virologist, nor (whatever a 9/11 expert would be!), so you can't 'step outside' of this. You judge them to be right or wrong based on your adoption of exactly the same methods. You judge people who agree with you to be right and those who disagree with you to be wrong because of your choice of who to trust, it's just circular to claim that this proves someone making the same choice turned out to be right. You're judging 'right' by that choice (who to trust), not by some other more direct means. You don't have access to the right measure rule on which to judge those parameters (which would be direct empirical evidence of the raw data).
Choosing people (or ostracising/castigating them) for their choices about who to trust is a social group exercise - we want these people in the group, we don't want those people. It's about the benefits and problems they might bring/cause for society. So this is where I take issue with what you're saying. We don't want people trusting Facebook memes and celebrity Twitter posts. Those people are probably going to lead society astray (the likelihood of them making good choices, just by chance, are slim), but that second option of yours...
Do we really only want people who trust the "overwhelming medical, scientific consensus"? Exclude those who take the side of the underwhelming medical and scientific dissenters? Why would we do that? What advantage to society does removing scientific dissent bring?
Sure if the 'scientist' concerned is payed by the oil companies and no-one else agrees with him we might have cause to doubt he's acting as a scientist at all, but without such tokens, what's the justification for requiring conformity to the consensus?
Quoting Isaac
This is a flaw of state government, that seeks to connect people who aren't in any way connected. Such supposed disputes are meaningless to me. If they don't care enough to knock on my door, why should I?
Essentially this is bureaucracy calling itself the solution for problems it causes.
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
Of course threats of violence are necessary.
What if an individual refuses to part with their wealth? Or what if individuals continue to find ways of circumventing taxation through undeclared labor and bartering? There's a reason laws are in place that threaten violence for exactly that end - people are very crafty when it comes to avoiding things they do not want to do.
Just like how the justice system hides its threats of violence behind a line of lesser punishments, it is no less present. The authoritarian wet dream where every citizen is monitored and controlled in such an absolute way that dissent from the government's will is impossible, this threat of violence is simply shifted to somewhere else. But I suspect in such a state taxation would be the least of one's worries. It would be de facto slavery.
It's a fantasy to believe large amounts of people can be controlled against thier will without the use or threatening of violence.
Quoting Isaac
I've explained to you why trying to use opinions to justify violence is bad.
Your alternative is not to try to justify violence with opinions.
Of course they're connected. You benefit from their unemployment. Do you seriously know this little about economics?
Quoting Tzeentch
What, all four thousand of them?
Quoting Tzeentch
We've just been through this, the government just take it from their bank account or from their house while they're out.
Quoting Tzeentch
Same. Compensatory recompense is just taken from their property. Did you not even read our previous exchange? We've been through all this.
Quoting Tzeentch
If they avoid detection, how does a law help?
Quoting Tzeentch
I'm not justifying violence at all. No one is. That's the problem. You are equating taxation with justifying violence and you're wrong to. Taxation is just about reaching an agreement over who owns what. How such an agreement is enforced is a completely separate question. It need not be by violence, as I've explained quite exhaustively now.
Do you?
No—those are called examples. There’s gray area.
Quoting Isaac
I can, and do. I know more about climate science than the average person, which is what we were talking about.
There is also plenty of evidence in favor of going with mainstream science and medicine.
There is such a thing as correct and incorrect. The people who are anti-vaccine or climate deniers are simply wrong. The ones who “throw in” with mainstream science and medicine, but who are almost completely ignorant about science and medicine, is what the topic was. They happen to be right, and that matters.
Yes, when it comes to laypeople. People should trust scientists and doctors — and these institutions should be trustworthy.
As for others: it’s good to be questioning and challenging dogma and the status quo. But only if you put in the work— not simply because you’ve spent a few minutes on YouTube.
Quoting Isaac
I figured you’d go this route.
I’m not talking about scientific dissent— which is indeed important.
The topic was the similar ignorance of both those who agree with and disagree with scientific consensus and mainstream medicine. My sole claim, in this case, is that those who have the intuition, instinct, or judgment to put their money on — and trust — the opinions of most experts deserve some credit, despite their ignorance of the subject.
:100:
https://ourplnt.com/i-did-my-own-research/
Ha! We all think we're better than average drivers, have better than average senses of humour...Notwithstanding, your knowledge is still second hand, it still comes from those you trust. The amount of time you've taken doesn't alter the nature of the information you gathered, which remains secondary.
Quoting Xtrix
Neither are a sufficiently homogenous group to be either right nor wrong.
Quoting Xtrix
That wasn't the question I asked. I asked if people should trust the consensus.
Quoting Xtrix
Of course, but this still doesn't answer the question I asked.
Quoting Xtrix
But you've still dodged the question. Why "most experts". What is it about the relative proportion of experts trusted which deserves this credit. If fifty fully qualified experts think one thing and five similarly qualified experts think another, what is it about choosing the fifty which deserves such praise over choosing the five when deciding who to trust?
Massive randomized study is proof that surgical masks limit coronavirus spread, authors say (Sep 1, 2021)
You'll occasionally see someone not having their mask cover their nose, or otherwise not used quite right. I guess effectiveness depends on a few things, on some scale, not just (y) or (n).
This comment doesn't follow from the article you posted, and why does this need to be in a separate thread from the main coronavirus one?
Do we need a separate jorndoe billboard?
My statement is not subjective. I simply know more about the topic than average people.
To react how you did is typical, I suppose, because it sounds ego driven. But it’s a statement of fact, and there’s no reason not to say it simply because it applies to myself— any more than the claim that I’m taller than the average person. I take no pride in it any more than I do about chess or poker. Doesn’t make me special, just means I’ve spent more time on it. Why one is considered bad taste and the other perfectly fine is something we should grow out of.
Quoting Isaac
My knowledge of mathematics is also “second hand.”
Why you continue on like this is baffling.
Quoting Isaac
They are. Those who are anti-vaxxers and climate deniers are wrong. Sorry it’s a struggle for you to acknowledge the obvious.
Quoting Isaac
Which I answered: yes.
Quoting Isaac
It doesn’t deserve much praise. It’s just a much better bet, as a layman.
Why? Because the more experts draw the same conclusion, the greater the probability that it’s true. This can be checked— it’s an empirical claim.
98 out of 100 nutritionists say you should almost never eat McDonalds. Does following their advice deserve much praise? No. But it certainly deserves more than those laypeople who go with the 2% because they like Big Macs.
I can't be Pyrrho Pyrrho but I can at least pay homage to his good faith and sincerity and say,
1. Don't know
2. Don't know
3. Don't know
The shocking truth is I really don't know. I seem to drift back and forth between the real world and my imaginary world, the line between them have blurred to the point of me being unable to distinguish them. Go figure!
No, none at all. The issue is that, without knowing them at all, you characterise those who disagree with you as having formed their opinions from five minutes on YouTube. The point I'm making is not one about egotistical sounding statements, it's about judgement. If it's possible to know enough about a subject to make objective factual statements about it without actually being a qualified expert, then you can't simply dismiss the objective factual statements of others on the grounds that they don't tally with yours. It's just as possible that they are as well-informed as you are (or better) and have simply arrived at a differing conclusion based on facts you aren't aware of.
Quoting Xtrix
That's not what you claimed.
Quoting Xtrix
You singled out, for credit, those who put their money on most experts.
Quoting Xtrix
And what does the greater probability of it being true have to do with ethics? You're talking about social praise, reward for behaviour to be promoted (as opposed to punishment for behaviour to be restricted). Why is the highest probability of being true the deciding factor in this? You've not explained why a society in which everyone follows the highest probabilities is a better one than one in which most people follow the highest probabilities and some follow the second highest, the third highest and so forth.
An argument for a minimum threshold of likelihood is easily made (trust experts, not snake-oil salesmen), there needs to be sufficient likelihood to outweigh the risk - standard risk assessment stuff. But you're here trying to make an argument not for thresholds, but that nothing other than the absolute highest probability of being true is enough to outweigh the risk of any action associated with it. This seems like a bizarre approach to risk. One which is inconsistent with all other judgments we make about people taking risks (all of which seems threshold based - as long as it's not too risky we'll generally consider it to be OK).
I'm intrigued if you take this approach to risk in other areas too. To you castigate people for not choosing the statistically least risky pastime possible. any who knowingly chooses a more risky one is to be reprimanded?
Quoting Xtrix
Really? You think you could find a qualified, nutritionist who says you can eat at McDonalds as often as you like (one who isn't obviously paid, or influenced by the fast food industry). The reason why your example sounds so convincing to you is because you've made up a deliberately convincing (and unfortunately completely fantastical) one. There are scores of properly qualified, unaffiliated experts in the appropriate field who raise a variety of objections to the consensus response to covid, climate change, (possibly 9/11 too - I've never looked). Your claim of homogeneity in opposition is ridiculous.
Even if we take this to be true, I never asked for it. Is there a way for me to opt out of my supposed benefits? I think not.
Again, states creating situations and problems I never asked for and am only a part of as a product of the impositions of the state itself.
Quoting Isaac
Sure. Obviously no one is going to bother, because these so-called disputes are meaningless.
If my supposed stake in this situation is so miniscule that it isn't even worth finding out who I am, then I think that is reason to assume there isn't any real dispute worth mentioning here.
Quoting Isaac
Bank account is empty, and person refuses to leave their house.
Quoting Isaac
Because the threat of reprisals often works in a deterring fashion. In fact, many would argue deterrence rather than punishment is the primary function of the justice system.
Quoting Isaac
Taxation is to redistribute wealth according to one's perception of what belongs to who under threat of violence (which is what the law is - impositions under threat of violence).
This is what I pointed out. If your position is any flavor of "This is ok, because..." you are justifying violence. If your position is "This is not ok, but..." then maybe you are not.
And taxation is not an agreement. Not one that involves me at any rate. This situation is simply imposed. I've never been presented with any terms, asked for a signature or given an opportunity to opt out. I never agreed to anything.
Yes, I've been saying that all along. This was my original statement in response to your emphasizing that most people, even those who are what we would call "correct" about a topic (climate change, vaccines), are themselves often just as ignorant about climatology and medicine. I agreed, with the following qualification:
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Isaac
Nothing.
Quoting Isaac
I never once made sweeping statements like this. You repeatedly seem to forget the topic, and what I have actually said. I never once mentioned "everyone." I'm talking about laymen, the average citizen, and have been from the beginning, as quoted above.
For them, as for anyone who doesn't have a clue about a particular topic, the best move is to go with the overwhelming consensus of experts. Those who do, I argue, deserve praise only in the sense of having the good judgment to do so -- their ignorance of the topic itself notwithstanding.
I really don't think this is a controversial statement if you take a few seconds to think about it. Is it better to be on the right side of the truth or not? I'd argue it is. I'd argue it's better to make a bet and win than make a bet and lose. I'd argue it's better to choose surgery if 98 out of 100 surgeons say it's the right move. I'd argue it's good to put your money into the pot when you're a 3:1 favorite to win.
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
This entire conversation has been rather bizarre. I'm not castigating or reprimanding anyone. Listen once again to what I initially said (and have repeated since):
"Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters."
That's not high praise, and it's not castigating those who don't.
You seem to be overthinking this and reading into things way too much.
Not everything is a debate, and you don't lose points by agreeing with truisms.
Quoting Isaac
Really? Yes, really.
Quoting Isaac
I never said "as often as you like."
You can find "experts" who make all kinds of claims. About tobacco, about fossil fuels, about sugar, about fast food, about anything you like. And that's part of my point.
Quoting Isaac
Not at all. You'll find most nutritionists say you should outright never eat McDonalds. Others will say it's OK a few times a year -- in other words, in moderation. Do any suggest you should eat fast food "as often as you like"? I'm sure very few, but you could probably find them -- just as you can find climate scientists who deny climate change, who are also sincere.
So it's not fantastical at all. But even assuming it was -- that completely misses the point. Just use the examples I started with, in this very thread, regarding COVID and vaccines. Nothing "fantastical" about that either -- the vast majority of doctors and scientists are encouraging vaccinations. Around 96% of doctors have gotten the vaccine themselves.
My advice to those who know nothing about medicine is simple: listen to the overwhelming medical consensus about this issue.
Simple. Easy. Yet seemingly very difficult for you which, again, is rather bizarre.
Quoting Isaac
There are almost no experts who question the use of vaccines, or that climate change is real, or that 9/11 happened. If this is what you mean, then I can see why this discussion has been difficult for you.
If that's not the case, then whatever you mean by "response" here is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Yes, there are disagreements about exactly how to tackle climate change, how best to handle COVID (although there is still a large consensus), etc. So what? That's completely irrelevant.
Maybe this will help: do you think vaccines should be taken? Do you think climate change is real and should be dealt with? Do you believe the Earth is spherical?
If you answer yes to any of those, then I'm not sure what you're arguing against -- besides straw man you've constructed about my "praising" people. My only claim was that they deserve some credit, and I used the example of instinct players in poker, which is a good example.
I can say it only so many ways:
Those lay persons who go with the overwhelming scientific or medical consensus, despite knowing nothing about science or medicine, at least deserve credit for that judgment -- because it's the wiser bet.
Shouldn't be controversial, except for those who want to defend their own bad judgment.
The state didn't create the problem, it proffered a solution to it. The problem pre-exists. People compete over scarce resources. Mostly the strong win and the weak lose. States redress that (or at least they represent the opportunity to).Quoting Tzeentch
Then tough luck on the state.
Quoting Tzeentch
If this is true, then it's true whether states exist or not. Any group of people could threaten you to get you to do something. It's just a fact of the world, nothing to do with states. We could prevent it, if we thought it was unethical. But it would require organisations - ie a state. Still has nothing to do with taxes because the state needn't use this method.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's not redistribution. There's no naturally occurring distribution of wealth with which taxation interferes. Taxation is part of the distribution of wealth. and it needn't involve violence, as I made quite clear.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes you did. You were given the opportunity to vote, campaign, make a party, seek election. You chose not to. That is what constitutes your agreement in a democracy. If you have a better way of reaching an agreement, then I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.
Quoting Xtrix
Then why the praise? If they've not done something ethically praiseworthy? Are just personally pleased with them?
Quoting Xtrix
OK. So, same question but for laymen. what's the advantage to society in have all the laymen follow the advice that it most likely to be right (as opposed to having some of them follow the second most likely, third most likely etc.)?
Quoting Xtrix
Woah. When did 'Truth' enter into it? How is it 'true' that we ought to vaccinate. It can be true that the vaccine prevent coivd-19 symptoms in the majority of people. It can be true that is causes problematic side-effects in only a very tiny fraction of those taking it. Neither of those things are a statement about what we ought to do. They are both statements of fact. To get an action out them we need an objective, and a value system to weigh it against other objectives. Do you have experts in those things?
Quoting Xtrix
Find one then.
Quoting Xtrix
Again, in what way can a doctor be an expert in which values are most important, such that they can give an expert opinion on what one ought to do?
Quoting Xtrix
That's just bullshit. The JCVI here in the UK have just ruled that the vaccine should not be authorised for the under 15s
You have a strange definition of 'encouraging vaccines' if you think advising against rolling them out constitutes encouragement.
Here's one way of bridging ye olde is-ought gap -- dunno if it's all that persuasive.
As I've mentioned, one of the curious features about vaccination as a "moral quandary" is that it's one everybody faces. I've leaned on this to explain why everyone feels entitled to an opinion about everyone else's decisions: at the very least it's something they've already thought through and have a ready-to-hand opinion about it. But it also means I have the option of looking to the decisions of many others to help make my own decision. That could be a matter of exemplars (this politician I trust got it, so I should get it) or of numbers (almost everyone is getting it, so I should get it).
I might be particularly interested in the decisions of people like me in many ways but more qualified to judge the science than I am. Most "moral quandaries" don't turn on how well you understand the facts of the case -- that's an epistemological problem -- and certainly don't turn on how well you understand some particular field of science it would take you many years to master. Your lack of training and knowledge could very well block you from completing an otherwise clear decision-making process that results in an ought. But there are people who are not so handicapped and I could take them as proxies for how I would decide if I didn't get stuck at the facts-and-science step of my reasoning.
Now let's add to that another fact: the doctors and scientists and public health officials who have gotten vaccinated at very high rates, are all citizens of the same country I am. Suppose we treat each citizen as an expert on citizenship in just the same sense that everyone counts as an expert in their native language. It doesn't mean we all agree on everything, but there's tremendous overlap driven by a shared goal of preserving a working solution to a cooperation problem. You are not without exception required to speak your native language exactly as everyone else does -- they're not all uniform anyway -- but their aggregate opinion, made manifest in the way they use words, does indeed count as a rule you ought to follow -- just not quite 100% ought. If we look at citizenship in a similar way, then we can reach similar conclusions, that indeed every citizen expects every other citizen to conform to some set of norms that are bound up with citizenship, and it shouldn't be hard to see that.
From this I conclude that within the subset of citizens actually qualified to make the decision at all, the norm of behavior is to get vaccinated. And therefore there is a norm that I ought to get vaccinated. QED and a bottle of rum.
Briefly just wanted to say - If you've read anything I've written previously about ethics (although why would you have done), you'll see this is very much in line with the way I think about it. I've previously given the example of punching old ladies, that if someone thought punching old ladies was something we 'ought' to do they would be categorically wrong because they will simply have misunderstood what the word 'ought' means. 'Ought' is a word and so like any other word, it's meaning is found by its use within a community of language users. 'Ought' is used for things like not punching old ladies.
The problem I have with extending it to vaccines is the extent to which we can use these others as proxies. No-one ought to punch an old lady, no-one at all. There aren't exceptions for certain people, or circumstances, because punching old ladies is not a means to any good end. Everyone 'ought' to pay the grocer after he's delivered the potatoes (to paraphrase Anscombe). Children did not ought to get the vaccine, the immunosuppressed did not ought to get the vaccine, there's debate around whether young adults ought to get the vaccine. There are clearly factors determining this particular ought. That means that the factors (not the normative) are the relevant variable. The reason being that the vaccine is a means to an end (the general health of the community), not and end in itself. I've no objection to means being norms, but they usually come with caveats so that the ends are met by them. We don't want to become slaves to the means even when they're no longer working, it's the ends that really matter.
What we have from the ethical analysis you've given here is that there definitely exists a group who ought to take the vaccine and there definitely exists a group out ought not take the vaccine (and probably a group for whom it's moot). That's the reach of the ethics. Am I in one of the exception groups? That becomes a technical question, not an ethical one.
...but you can still have your rum. The derivation of an ought from an is alone deserves that!
Yes I thought of that but then deliberately didn't think about it, because that puts you -- taking "you" as whoever's making a decision here -- back in the position of judging the facts and the science, which we've stipulated you are not competent to do. If you are competent to make this decision, the argument's not for you; if you aren't but insist you are, oh well, did my best.
(Although I could try to something else to burst your bubble: suppose I could get my hands on a comprehensive cross-tabbed survey of medical and medical research professionals, and I could actually pull out very close comps: "Look, here's 19,815 experts all about your age with extremely similar risk-factor profiles and all but 11 of them have gotten vaccinated." If that wouldn't convince you I'd have to assume you're not just not interested in the social norm at all.)
Children -- look, we can ignore children. They aren't being asked to choose whether to get vaccinated. Similarly, those with serious medical conditions -- they already have a modified decision-making process that is at least cooperative and perhaps beholden to the professionals providing and managing their care.
Quoting Isaac
So that's wrong and misses the whole point of the exercise. Because you are not competent to judge these factors, you want to know what the norm is among people who are, and it will carry considerable weight for you if you care about social norms.
Of course it did. The only reason I am connected to unemployed Bob who lives hundreds of kilometers away from me of whom I supposedly benefit, is because at one point a state decided an area of land was theirs.
Quoting Isaac
In that case there is indeed no threat of violence, but how long would such a system of taxation last when untaxed alternatives are available without a threat of punishment?
Quoting Isaac
That makes no difference to the point I am making.
Quoting Isaac
You asked how threats of violence make any difference when seeking compliance and I explained it to you.
Again - the question of alternatives is not all that relevant when discussing the nature of taxation.
Quoting Isaac
Of course there is. Are you suggesting people cannot exchange goods and services unless they're being taxed?
Quoting Isaac
This is not true. Even if I were to do all those things, every single one of them would be an implicit agreement to the state's impositions, not a disagreement. And even then a situation where I'd be completely reliant on being able to sway others to my cause in order to disagree makes no sense at all.
And you may be right. As I said earlier, I probably wouldn't argue from a social norm position. I'm just interested in where this leads. So with that in mind...
Yes. If you could produce a slew of experts who were like me in the key variables and show that they all got vaccinated, then I think that would create a compelling social norm case, but you'd need a few more parameters to distinguish it as a 'moral' norm (an 'ought'). I expect the vast majority of my close cohort also wear trousers. do we want to say that wearing trousers is something I ought to do? If we're being terribly modern, we'd like to say no. I did, however, ought to wear something over my nether regions. So you'd need an argument that vaccination is like clothing (the aim) and not like trousers (a very popular choice of solution). The actions of the vast majority of a cohort don't seem to give you that. Vast majorities are no less prone to cultural social norms than they are moral ones.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Why not?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, I think you would. But do you see that data out there? Is there anything suggesting specifically that the same imperative that applies to urbanite, overweight smokers as applies to rural-dwelling, healthy athletes (not that I'm an athlete, I just needed a third - rule of threes). Recall the public health advice on potatoes. They're not a vegetable. They don't count toward your five-a-day. Why? Not because they're not as nutritious as other vegetables (they are), but because public health only gets one shot at one simple message, and they don't want your average Joe thinking chips count.
It goes back to the children issue. Why have they not advised children to get vaccinated? Because the benefits don't outweigh the risks sufficiently. Why? Because children are less likely to get ill from it and the evidence on transmission reduction is patchy at best (not my personal view, the view of the experts whose job it was to decide). So are we to assume that something magic happens at 15 and we suddenly become vulnerable to a disease? No. It's a rough cut off point, a public policy fudge made necessary by the millions of people the policy has to cover in one single easy to read message. Great bit of policy - tricky decision in difficult circumstances. Crazy thing to build a moral position on. It's a bureaucratic necessity for running a large country, not an ethical stone tablet.
What a stunningly naive thing to say. You share the same air, water, food sources, economy, oil reserves, enemies (sometimes), future... If Bob is unemployed the cost of labour is reduced because there's a demand for jobs. that means the manufacturer has to pay less for labour which means you get cheaper products. No state necessary, you benefit from bob's unemployment.
Quoting Tzeentch
I don't see much by way of untaxed alternatives. Most people couldn't get by without banks, or by staying permanently in their home. I think if the government wanted to take what it believed to be it's property, it wouldn't have too hard a time doing so without violence
Quoting Tzeentch
As I said, I've no interest in pubescent whinging. If all you want to do is say "Oh poor me" then we can end this here. Alternatives are all that matter.
Quoting Tzeentch
How did they obtain the goods? No violence, so they what? Just found them?
Quoting Tzeentch
That's the situation you're in. state or not, because you live with others. again, if all you want to do is whine about how difficult life is, then we'll just stop here.
I initially said "credit," not "praise" -- you wanted to use "praise." That's fine, call it what you will. But as I've said several times now, I don't think it deserves much praise at all. But it deserves some. Why? Again, the poker example is a good one. There are winning players who don't know a thing about game theory, and yet they win. That's not just random chance and lucky guessing; they're making the mathematically/theoretically "correct" moves, but they're doing so by incorporating things like instinct, intuition, sensitivity to psychological data, the ability to read people, etc. Whatever the source of these instincts, I think they deserve some credit for having them in the first place. That's arguable -- maybe they don't. Maybe people who have a natural "aptitude" for things don't deserve any credit either. That's a discussion perhaps worth having. But either way, I'm not suggesting high praise.
Quoting Isaac
You speak as if we're not currently living the answer, presumably forgetting the thread topic.
If most laypeople in the United States, who know nothing about vaccines, virology, microbiology, biochemistry, medicine, molecular biology, immunology, epidemiology, etc. etc., would listen to what these experts are saying and take the vaccine, then that would be a very great advantage indeed -- for everyone.
But the question is an odd one anyway. It's like asking: "What's the advantage of having everyone put their money on something with a 70% chance of winning instead of a 20% chance or 10% chance?"
Quoting Isaac
It's true that smoking increases the likelihood of getting cancer. It's true that anthropogenic climate change is happening. It's true that vaccines are highly effective at combating COVID. It's true that masks help slow the spread of the virus.
Many people outright deny all of the above, largely because they believe the wrong people. People and things which I mentioned above -- quack doctors, Facebook memes, YouTube stars, bloggers, Twitter users, bogus websites, etc.
Quoting Isaac
Again, take a step away from Hume for a minute. Everything I mentioned above is a fact -- it is true, in any sense of the word. Based on those facts, we can decide what to do. It's that simple. But people aren't listening to the facts anymore, and that's the problem. They're not listening because they don't trust medical or scientific authority -- and that's a dangerous mistake.
True, maybe there are people who want the Earth to burn up, who want the pandemic to spread further, who want to die tomorrow, who want to get lung cancer, etc. In those cases, the facts I mentioned above, in their minds, translates to the exact opposite actions of most sane people. So what?
Quoting Isaac
Yes: nearly every human being on the planet who want to continue to live, who want the pandemic to be over, who want to sustain the environment for future generations, etc.
The question isn't whether or not people are insane. I confess, I make the assumption that most people want to go on living.
The question is a matter of who they're listening to. Eventually it'll be right in front of them: they'll get COVID themselves, even after believing it was a "hoax" because they listened to some guy on the internet say so. Eventually the impacts of climate change will hit them where they live, despite believing it's a "Chinese hoax" because they trusted Donald Trump over the overwhelming scientific consensus. Etc.
Quoting Isaac
That's like saying "find someone who says climate change is a hoax." Equally ridiculous. But they're out there, despite not helping whatever argument you're trying to make.
Quoting Isaac
Are you serious?
I won't even get into it again -- see above -- but think for a second about what you're saying. You're really going off the rails, and I have no idea why.
I think you're a prime example for the people on here who argue that studying philosophy isn't such a good thing for most people. If this is the kind of argument that comes out of it, we're in very deep trouble indeed.
Quoting Isaac
No, it's just a fact.
But let me get this straight: the idea that there are nutritionists out there who would say "eat McDonalds as often as you like" you consider to be outlandish -- you don't even think there's one. But the idea that there are "almost no experts" who question the vaccine -- equally absurd -- you think is "bullshit," and then talk about recommendations for kids as "proof" of this?
In case it's not clear: none of those doctors are questioning the use of vaccines. If you believe recommendations about appropriate ages to get the vaccine is equivalent to "questioning the use of vaccines," you've really misread my statement. Which is a striking misreading.
But your only criteria for identifying these people is that they win. That's not the criteria you're using here. The criteria you're using here is that they trust the same people you trust for the same reasons. Winning has not entered into it.
Quoting Xtrix
This just assumes the question of discussion.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, that's exactly the question I'm asking.
Quoting Xtrix
All true. What's that got to do with the ethical question of whether one ought to take the vaccine? These are just the facts of the case, not the course of action it concludes.
Quoting Xtrix
Then why do people skydive? I don't know what kind of people you associate with, but in my experience going on living is not even in the top ten. People want to enjoy themselves, have sex, relax, learn new things, have a group of friends, taste nice food, make meaningful relationships, see beauty, stamp their identity on the world, play a part in something bigger then them...Maybe the mundane act of going on on living comes 11th at best.
Quoting Xtrix
Well yes, only about 1,999 in every 2,000 won't even notice. so I don't know what impact you think that might have on their thinking other than to cement any rejection they may have fostered.
Quoting Xtrix
Repeating the assertion doesn't prove it. I very much doubt there is a nutritionist out there who says you can eat the quantity of junk food most Americans eat who does not have a clear bias (paid for by fast food companies, or some such). There are properly and appropriately qualified scientists without any ulterior affiliation who question the use of the vaccine, against the official advice. The situation is not the same at all.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, very. It's clear that a doctor cannot provide a judgement about what one ought to do, they provide medical facts. What one ought to do about those facts is a separate question which a doctor is no more qualified to answer than you are.
Quoting Xtrix
Then what would you call it? Some experts are saying we should roll out the vaccines to children, others are saying we should not. That sounds like questioning the use of vaccines. The question is about their use, no? Some experts have 24 as the cut off, some 18, others 15. Some experts think we should roll out boosters, others don't. Some experts think that FDA approval should not have been given, others that it should have been given earlier. Some experts think we should be targeting the vulnerable in other countries, others think we should get as much coverage as possible regardless of where. These are all questions about the use of the vaccine. The fact that you'd rather spend all your energy defeating tinfoil-hat wearing lunatics who think vaccines contain nano-transmitters (despite the fact that none of those people are even posting here) says more about you than it does about the arguments of the serious vaccine-hesitant.
I don't share those things any more than I share it with Mr. Liuang on the other side of the world. And even if I did, it is a situation I neither brought about nor asked for.
Again, I don't feel that connection in the same way you might. I deal with people in my vicinity - people whose interests I can properly understand and aren't statistical abstractions.
Quoting Isaac
Ok, so why do governments historically and temporarily rely on (threats of) violence if they don't have to?
Quoting Isaac
Yes, why wouldn't that be possible?
Natural resources used to be up for grabs before states started claiming all of it en masse, with all the consequences that has brought.
Quoting Isaac
I'm not whining at all. Our discussion isn't about me.
Your opinion seems to be that there are no alternatives for the problems I have laid out, and that I should just stop whining about them. What is this other than tacit agreement?
You have your own private air supply?
Quoting Tzeentch
What's that got to do with the fact of the matter. Whether you 'feel' a connection doesn't have any bearing on whether one exists.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's a lot easier, for a start. I doubt they have as much moral qualms about doing so as you do. Again, their chosen course of action is irrelevant here. If you want to argue about the methods by which governments obtain what they rightfully think is theirs, that's a different matter. I think the methods could be much improved too. But that's not the argument you're making, the argument you're making is about the rightful ownership of the taxed portion of your pay.
Quoting Tzeentch
Read some history, then start again. The stealing of land by force from those who originally made use of it pre-dates states by several hundred thousand years. Not to mention the fact that our current population density and current place in such a long complex history, makes any return to such a state impossible - again I'm not entertaining childish whinging here.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, that is exactly the argument. This is not a therapy session, it's a discussion forum.
Maybe not, but as I said, abstractions and miniscule connections are of no significance to me when it comes to dealing with other people. I wouldn't expect my neighbor to compensate me for breathing the same air as I, even he were to breathe a little more than I.
These supposed connections to people on the other side of the globe are only theoretical and do not find any true bearing within the human experience: at least not in mine.
Quoting Isaac
Yes, states have historically proven to lack any semblance of a moral compass that could in some way justify the power attributed to them.
Quoting Isaac
What is rightful and what is not was never a part of my argument, so this is simply not true.
Quoting Isaac
Maybe so, but states have perfected this dark art.
Quoting Isaac
It's good to know you're not entertaining whinging in regards to a point I am not making. A little irrelevant to our discussion, though.
Quoting Isaac
This would imply you see the problems as I have laid them out, and are simply asking me to stop talking about them. I won't, obviously.
Like who, and with what arguments?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15
Apparently this changes as soon as a person turns 16. The reasoning behind not giving the vaccine to healthy 12-15 year olds seems to me to apply to all healthy people.
I was offering a reply to your post above mine, asking for examples of scientists questioning the use of the vaccine and the reasons for this.
(Posted before you had edited)
The meaningful element of your question seems to me to be whether there are scientists who question the use of the vaccine. The word is that Chris Whitty is going to green-light vaccinations for 12-15 year olds, in which case the JCVI advice will be in opposition to that.
Yes, because that's an analogy. The point being made with that analogy is about decisions, and what we base those decisions on: knowledge or instinct.
Let's go over this yet again. The original point you made was: those who believe in climate change and vaccines are usually just as ignorant as those who don't. That's probably true and I agree with it. My claim, which started this odd interchange, was a simple one: regardless of their ignorance, one group is lining up with the truth (climate change is real; vaccines are effective; the Earth is spherical, etc), the other isn't -- this matters. I also think the people who go with the truth over bullshit, or in this case the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, deserve some credit for doing so -- just as the "instinct player" deserves some credit (not a lot, but some) for having the instincts to make the right poker moves.
I'll repeat all this as many times as you need, as tiresome as it is.
Quoting Isaac
Whatever question you have in mind, it wasn't what started this discussion. What started this discussion is the following:
(1) You claimed both sides are ignorant.
(2) I conceded that, but added...
(3) One side is still going with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and deserve some credit for doing so.
That's all this has been about, your digressions aside.
Quoting Isaac
Amazing. All right, I'll explain it:
Assuming people like to win money, putting their money on something with a higher probability of winning is the right move. It's advantageous. It's also basic logic. Here's the definition of advantage:
"a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position."
Putting money on something with a 20% chance of winning puts you at a disadvantage compared to a 70% chance of winning.
Now switch to the topic of this thread. Assuming three things: (1) people want to live a healthy life, (2) people want the pandemic to be over, and (3) the medical establishment is correct in recommending vaccines as a way to stop the spread of COVID and take us out of the pandemic, then we're in the exact same position. It's advantageous for everyone if people take the vaccines.
Are you in favor of vaccinations or not? Do you believe people should get themselves vaccinated? Do you agree with the medical establishment? If not, just say so and trying to dance around it by playing dumb and arguing these ridiculous points.
Quoting Isaac
That wasn't the topic. The topic was the following:
(1) You claimed both sides are ignorant.
(2) I conceded that, but added...
(3) One side is still going with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and deserve some credit for doing so.
You now want to raise an ethical question, which is different. But I'll indulge. It's very simple:
If we make the basic assumption that people want to live, want to be healthy, want to come out of the pandemic, etc., then the facts mentioned above lead directly to the conclusion of what one ought to do. If you're really questioning those assumptions, then that's your own business.
Quoting Isaac
:lol:
Because people want to die, be sick, etc.? It's hard to skydive when you're dead -- but have it your way.
Quoting Isaac
Likewise with the fossil fuel industry "scientists" and the COVID quackery. Very clear bias, very clear motivations (almost always monetary).
Quoting Isaac
Doctors do this all the time, because they live in the real world and assume people don't want to be sick and die -- an assumption you seem to want to argue about.
Again, put down David Hume and what you've read about the "is/ought" gap -- it's bogus anyway.
Regardless, this wasn't the topic. The topic was the following:
(1) You claimed both sides are ignorant.
(2) I conceded that, but added...
(3) One side is still going with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and deserve some credit for doing so.
If you want to have philosophical debates about dividing the world up into "facts" and "values," fine. But we're dealing with a real world situation. It's very simple: people should listen to doctors and take the vaccine. It would be better for everyone. It's the ethical thing to do, it's also the smart thing to do -- all based on overwhelming evidence. True, all this rests on the assumption that people want to live, want to be healthy, want the pandemic to be over, want to stop the spread of COVID, aren't sociopaths, etc. I'm sure you can find some exceptions, but this is the assumption I make -- and I think it's reasonable to everyone but those who spend way too much time with abstractions and introductory philosophy books. ("What if people like being sick? What if they want to die?")
Again, if you don't agree with that, then say so. But don't try to shift the topic into the fact/value dichotomy -- I'm really not interested, nor do I believe in such nonsense.
Worth quoting the whole thing. This is why philosophy gets a bad rep.
:up:
:up:
Snip psychoanalysis of those who provide aid and comfort to a virus. I remembered I'm not a psychologist, even if I could play one on the internet.
This is an example of bad faith, I think. I can't imagine why anyone would want to continue on like this unless they're secretly an anti-vaxxer. Otherwise it's just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, arguing for the sake of arguing. Maybe some people like to think of these things as "debates" where one gets points if one "wins," or pride themselves on arguing indefensible positions. Who knows. Any thoughts?
Is this an example of a complete waste of time, which I've argued against in the "Axioms of Discourse" thread?
This is the only interesting question that emerges from such interchanges, in my view.
I agree, though as I said, I'm not trained up in psychoanalysis. I had written up a rather lengthy explanation of what I thought might be the motivation, but it went way beyond the gadfly or sincere intellectual curiosity, or the insolent, or the petulant, or the sadistic glee of the troll. Those are things I'm qualified to speculate on. No, this goes beyond that. It wouldn't be an issue except there are those who are persuaded to avoid the vax based upon such posturing.
I tried to explain how one should not merely cite sources, but find out what the other side said about what the sources said, and then the reply. But I'm not seeing any intellectual rigor. I agree bad faith is the explanation. It would be interesting to see what a shrink had to say about it, but that's another thread. I wonder how many people have died as a result of this type of "thinking"?
We don't have to wonder -- it's happening right now, all around us. And people like Isaac help it along -- which is unfortunate.
:100:
I hope I have not contributed to the problem by giving oxygen to it. My natural inclination is to engage, but standing down might be the better part of valor. While Covid can fix stupid, I certainly can't. :blush:
“The vaccine will protect you.” Why should we expect it to do more than a natural, healthy immune response?
“It will protect others by reducing transmission.” By what mechanism does it reduce transmission compared to a normal immune response that itself suppresses symptoms?
“It will contribute to herd immunity.” In what way does it do this better than natural immunity?
The fact that the JCVI does not at this time recommend universal vaccination for 12-15 year olds shows that there is that balance to consider between the vaccine’s benefits and costs. The official line hasn’t to my awareness demonstrated the benefits well enough to justify those costs (regarding the healthy).
:roll:
:down:
QED
Yes, and those questions have been answered, numerous times. If you're unaware of them, it's because you're unwilling to find them -- nothing more.
'
True, there could be a vast global conspiracy involved. But short of that, it's crystal clear what one should do: take the vaccine.
Quoting AJJ
:lol:
Thankfully there are geniuses like you around to steer us in the right direction.
Here is a good case of what I mentioned above: someone who doesn't know what they're talking about deciding to go with quackery and conspiracy theories over the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus. Terrible, terrible judgment at its finest. It's like these losers who have two choices and always manage to pick the wrong one.
Imagine thinking the world's experts haven't asked themselves -- or don't have answers to -- your very profound "questions." I'm always in awe of this, especially with climate deniers. Now it's manifesting as COVID and vaccine denial, apparently. Same basic phenomenon.
Maybe I'll try it one day. I'll pick a topic -- one that hasn't even been politicized -- like physics, walk into a university and start arguing with the professor, confronting him with questions I've conjured up on my own (because I'm a very stable, and definitely not brainwashed, contrarian). I bet it feels amazing to have that level of ego.
Before I posted searched and watched the video here: https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-public-engagement-resources/covid-19-vaccines-young-healthy
No answers. I searched for an answer to the second question in particular and got this:
But there’s no clarity as to why a natural, healthy immune response won’t do the same thing. In fact, to my knowledge an asymptomatic infection is such precisely because of a reduced viral load and is common in young, healthy people.
Quoting Xtrix
In my above post I gave what I would describe as the opposite of a conspiracy theory.
:100: I wanted to distinguish health care providers from climate scientists (you know, the guys in the pockets of big environmentalists :roll:) but then I remembered, my doctor and all the other health care professionals around the globe are in the pocket of big pharma and the insurance companies that have reduced doctors to the status of Saul Goodman. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Anyway, you have more energy than I have if you want to tilt at this AJL windmill.
More like, simply Q.
That would actually be a good one if I’d described something resembling a conspiracy theory.
Read the thread. There's not much else you could hang your hat on.
To be honest, I didn't devote much time to reading what you had to say. I found my eyes rolling so much for the umpteenth time that I couldn't make it out. My bust. Carry on.
I guess that proves it. Please take your discoveries to the AMA, CDC, or WHO. You could win the Nobel Prize.
I don’t derive my opinions solely from myself. Some of those who informed my thinking probably deserve a prize.
Yeah, I hear Alex Jones is in the running this year.
John Ioannidis and Jonathan Sumption are two good examples of reputable persons who have advocated for caution and freedom since the beginning.
But are stumped by your questions, despite their having been answered repeatedly.
I’m sure you’ve understood them well.
They haven’t to my awareness dealt with those questions—I thought of those because I think. If my second question in particular has an answer then it isn’t easy to find. Feel free to direct me to it.
It won’t make a shred of difference. Why? Because the very fact that you have decided to “question” this issue, but don’t do so in almost any other area of your life, means you’re one more person who’s jumping in with a “side” — and you’ve happened to pick the wrong side, probably because of political or religious reasons and, hence, in bad faith. You’re not interested in learning anything. You’ve taken a side, and are now out to prove what you want to prove.
But just in case, this is what we know:
Vaccines are effective.
Vaccines are safe.
Vaccines slow the spread of COVID.
Even if one is otherwise healthy— it’s not simply about YOU, it’s about the community. Same reason we wear a mask— YOU may not care if you get it, but that’s not the point of a mask.
It would.
Quoting Xtrix
I question in all areas of life. I enjoy it.
Quoting Xtrix
We all have a “side”.
Quoting Xtrix
Have I though?
Quoting Xtrix
This is basically saying I believe things for reasons. This is true. I hold my political and religious beliefs for reasons too.
Quoting Xtrix
I am.
Quoting Xtrix
This is what you’re doing. It’s what everyone does all the time.
Quoting Xtrix
Not that effective. People still get ill and a train of booster shots is on the cards.
Quoting Xtrix
Debatable. Lots of documented side-effects, some truly awful.
Quoting Xtrix
Perhaps, but if they do this by reducing viral load and a healthy person’s immune system does this anyway then they’re a superfluous risk for those people.
Quoting Xtrix
It might be *about* the community, but whether they’re overall good for a community is debatable.
What would be the grounds for such a debate?
No it wouldn't.
Quoting AJJ
No, you don't.
Quoting AJJ
No, you don't.
Quoting AJJ
No, we don't.
Quoting AJJ
Yes, you have.
Quoting AJJ
No, it's not.
Quoting AJJ
No, it's not.
Quoting AJJ
No, you don't.
Quoting AJJ
No, you're not.
Quoting AJJ
No, it's not.
Quoting AJJ
No, it's not.
Quoting AJJ
Very effective.
Quoting AJJ
No, they don't.
Quoting AJJ
No, it's not.
Quoting AJJ
No.
Quoting AJJ
No, it's not superfluous.
Quoting AJJ
No, it's not.
See, I can play the disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish child too. The difference is, you enjoy it and adults don't. Carry on. :roll:
Whether vaccinating the young and healthy on balance helps the vulnerable community enough to warrant the death and debilitation that occurs within the former group.
That question has been answered. The allegations of death and debilitation that supposedly occurs within the former group are tenuous, at best, whereas the aid to the vulnerable community is proven.
But, since we are crunching numbers on human life, let's try this: If the death and debilitation that supposedly occurs within the former group are less, by huge orders of magnitude, than the death and debilitation that occurs in that group from Covid, and if their occupation of hospital beds and their drain on resources kills other people suffering from non-covid related injury or disease, then is it okay to rip the vents out of their yaps and dump their bodies out the hospital window to make room for human beings?
How so?
Quoting James Riley
Then I find odd the reluctance to provide an answer to my question about why viral loads are supposedly lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated asymptomatic (or mildly symptomatic) individuals.
Quoting James Riley
It’s been long known that young healthy people aren’t particularly troubled by this virus so I’m not getting the intended force of this hypothetical.
The type caused by blood clots, for example. Are you disputing that blood clots are a potential side effect of these vaccines?
Because, like those who challenge Covid deaths based upon comorbidities, any death and debilitation that supposedly occurs within the former group have not been shown to be the result of the vaccine. There were a few allegations of some hearth inflammation, but that has not been proven either. Regardless, even if, the numbers are within a statistical norm for people who didn't get the shot.
Quoting AJJ
You sound like Isaac who likes to find things "odd". Are you sure you are not him? I find it odd that two people in the same thread find so many things to be "odd." In any event, I haven't seen a reluctance t provide an answer to you question about why viral loads are supposedly lower in vaccinated individuals. It could be because we aren't experts in the field.
Quoting AJJ
That's because you have been paying attention. Go to Idaho. Go to any other location where people like you are coming in sick, begging for the vax, taking up beds, getting treated and sometimes saved by medicines that are not fully approved by the FDA, and sometimes dying; all while others are turned away because of the likes of you.
This in turn casts doubt on the claimed severity of the virus if both sides are inflating the figures in this way. But presumably those numbers will include actual vaccine deaths/injuries just as the others will include actual Covid deaths.
Quoting James Riley
I’d be interested to see where you’re getting this from.
Quoting James Riley
I think it’s a common polite way of telling someone they’re dodging something.
Quoting James Riley
That’s fine, but it’s a pertinent question and without an answer the claim that a vaccinated individual will be less likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated asymptomatic one is suspect.
Quoting James Riley
Where are you getting this from? It makes no sense according to my own experience of those around me catching the virus. If “young healthy people” in Idaho are as a rule becoming seriously ill then they’re for some reason in the vulnerable category instead.
One example is a runner called Sage Canaday who developed a blood clot after his second Pfizer dose. From what I’ve just gathered it wasn’t confirmed as being caused by the vaccine, which could mean that it wasn’t or that it was and went unreported as such.
No, it does not cast doubt. It just shows what a child you are to think so.
Quoting AJJ
Go get your advance degree in the area, along with decades of experience. Then you can presume. Until then you are just "odd."
Quoting AJJ
Do your research. LOL! You're a researcher, aren't you?
Quoting AJJ
I've only seen it from "two" (?) people on this board. You and Isaac. Not so common, at least in my experience. And, since it's my experience, like your experience with covid, I must be right. After all, my curiosity is oh so sincere. Like yours.
Quoting AJJ
If it's pertinent, then it has been asked and answered by those with the expertise to study and opine on the matter. Do your research. Ask Fauci. That's where I heard it. Google "CDC" and read their site. They are infinately more knowlegable about this and all your questions about it than you will ever be. Or, you could ask Tucker Carlson. I hear he's an expert too.
Quoting AJJ
You need to do your research. Oh, and asking a bunch of people like me on TPF does not count as research.
My point is that, regarding blood clots, there’s cause for concern with the other vaccines and we don’t know how many clots are going unreported. I take this same concern to apply to the other side effects also.
If there are figures showing these side effects are occurring and also anecdotal reports of ones that have gone unreported then this is worth considering when we talk of (I would say unnecessarily) vaccinating the world multiple times.
Quoting AJJ
In a world of such causes and considerations, it's a wonder you aren't hiding under your bed. The electronical that you are using poses a threat, you know. You should research that and let us know what you think. By gum, it's important! Why, I hear tell . . .
You, who know nothing about virology, immunology or epidemiology would say "unnecesarily"? On the basis of anecdotes that may or may not be accurate? Are you serious?
Not even close. On most issues in the real world — ones that haven’t been politicized— we allow the possibility of being wrong, since our identities don’t hinge on it.
Quoting AJJ
Vaccines are very effective against COVID. The fact that people "still get ill" does not detract from this statement. Nor do booster shots.
The odds of a breakthrough infection from COVID are very small, in fact. When breakthroughs do happen, they're much milder. This is what the data show, which you would know if you cared to learn about this instead of trying to prove an anti-vaxxer ideology, which is what you're doing.
Quoting AJJ
It's not debatable -- again, it's a matter of fact. 173 million people have been vaccinated. How many deaths?
Quoting AJJ
They don't.
"Even when the size of the viral loads are similar, the virus behaves differently in the noses and throats of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated."
But again, it's not simply about YOU and your "healthy immune system," even if it were true. Same as with getting an annual flu shot -- I used to think I didn't need one, because I could handle getting sick, until a doctor (rightly) pointed out to me that it's not simply about me.
Quoting AJJ
Everything's "debatable." Maybe the Earth is flat too, that's "debatable."
Why you want to debate only some things you don't understand is obvious -- it's because you're part of this anti-vaxxer crowd. Just be brave enough to own up to it. Stop pretending like you're interested in learning anything, and "just asking questions."
These questions have been answered, as a simple Google search will show. There's hundreds of millions of people vaccinated, and plenty of data on this now. Numerous studies. This is why we have the CDC, the WHO, and human beings who specialize in things like diseases and viruses and the immune system -- call them "doctors," "virologists," and "immunologists," if you will. I think it prudent to perhaps listen to what they have to say about this.
The real issue here, as mentioned before, is that you simply don't trust the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus. Fine -- that just means, in my view, that you have terrible instincts. But so be it.
Vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of COVID. That's good for the community, anti-vaxxer "skepticism" (delusions) notwithstanding.
There is no "death and debilitation." You're talking nonsense.
Quoting AJJ
Because there's no evidence to support that claim whatsoever. So not only "tenuous," but an outright delusion.
True, I'm sure you can find some freak cases out of hundreds of millions of vaccinations where something is claimed to have gone wrong. I'm sure you can do the same with the polio vaccine, the flu vaccines, the TB shot, etc. Someone died a week later of a heart attack, someone committed suicide, someone got hit by a bus (who knows -- could there be a connection?). Fortunately, anecdotes aren't evidence.
If you're worried about stuff like that, then the answer to your question is a very easy one indeed: everyone should get vaccinated, old and young.
Quoting AJJ
Yes. That was one claim about the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, for example, which is not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, and it was shown to be extremely infrequent. It has nothing to do with younger people, or their "death and debilitation." So you'll now retract that ridiculous claim, I assume? (Given that you're sincerely just looking to have your questions answered, of course.)
I won't hold my breath.
Quoting Janus
Couldn't have put it better myself.
For how long?
There’s a particular saying that should immediately enter your mind on reading this back.
I wouldn’t pull a rather gruesome trigger on a set of people simply because others were upset about me not doing so, no.
If vaccinating the world provides no special benefit that healthy immune systems and taking care when sick do not, then even a small number of deaths and terrible health conditions among the young and healthy should not be accepted in trade. The JCVI essentially made this judgement recently regarding the universal vaccination of 12-15 year olds.
I’m quite certain that you’ve hinged your identity on this issue because you argue about it poorly.
Quoting Xtrix
This just isn’t true: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796.amp
Quoting Xtrix
I don’t need to retract: https://m.jpost.com/health-science/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-linked-to-rare-blood-disease-israeli-study-671694
It does detract from that statement, because people still get ill despite being vaccinated and need further shots for the vaccination to work adequately.
Quoting Xtrix
The infection is already likely to be mild or asymptomatic in young healthy people with normal immune systems.
Quoting Xtrix
In the UK is was 1,440 by the end of June: https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/07/15/fact-deaths-due-to-the-covid-vaccines-in-the-uk-after-6-months-are-407-higher-than-deaths-due-to-all-other-vaccines-combined-in-the-past-11-years/
Quoting Xtrix
Where is this from?
I know you would think that, but that's because you only think of yourself. Like I said, you are disrespectful, inconsiderate and selfish. I didn't vax for me. You stand corrected.
:lol:
As I said, I'm sure you can find freak cases -- which is all this is. It's also inconclusive and, as stated in the article, "very rare."
Again, if this is what you mean by "death and debilitation," you can find it with any vaccine. It's complete delusion.
Quoting AJJ
"A spokesperson from the hospital stressed that this study, which was very small, should in no way deter people from vaccinating and encouraged anyone who has not yet been inoculated to get the jab."
So this is "death and debilitation"? An inconclusive, small study from Israel where they outright say that it shouldn't deter people from getting the vaccine and, again, an example you can give with any vaccine whatsoever? It's as if you want there to be a reason for deterring vaccinations...hmmm....
I'd ask why you're desperately searching for reasons to make ridiculous claims about the vaccines, but we already know the answer: you're an anti-vaxxer. Have the courage to come out and say it.
Quoting AJJ
It does not detract from the statement. Vaccines are highly effective against COVID -- period. Breakthrough cases happen, yes. They're about 1 in 5,000 or 10,000. If that's not effective, then "effective" has no meaning.
Quoting AJJ
You cite "Rights and Freedoms," which is not credible. But even if it were 1,440 deaths -- which it isn't -- what's that percentage? 92 million doses given in the UK so far. You do the math.
There is no "death and debilitation" from the vaccines, and no evidence whatsoever supporting such a claim. They're highly effective and safe, and help slow the spread, which is why health experts are pushing for them to be taken.
Sorry this doesn't fit your anti-vaxxer narrative, but it's true. Anecdotes, inconclusive studies, and freak cases, while fun to talk about, tell us nothing about the vaccines -- even if we take them seriously.
You said there was no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that death and debilitation are occurring among healthy vaccinated people. This isn’t true.
Quoting Xtrix
People getting and dying from blood clots is, yes. So is Guillain-Barré syndrome, heart inflammation and eye disorders.
Quoting Xtrix
This is why I say you’re arguing about this poorly (I expect you do about everything). I’ve given examples and statistics to support what I say, you arbitrarily dismiss them and beg the question. The vast majority of people:
1. Say things
2. Become upset when asked to support what they say
3. Beg the question
4. And ultimately pretend that no argument against their position has been made
They do this because they can’t think. This whole affair is a consequence of so many people being this way.
It is true. There is no evidence whatsoever.
That could turn out to be wrong. If evidence is presented that shows this, fine -- then they're freak cases which occur in any vaccine whatsoever. No different than someone dying of toothpaste. It would still make the claim of "death and debilitation" completely delusional.
If you seriously want to play the game of "Well even ONE death proves it" -- then, I repeat: ANYTHING we do or use can be argued to lead to "death and debilitation." But it's a stupid argument.
Quoting AJJ
You've made an argument, and a ridiculous one. You've cited evidence which is inconclusive and non-credible. But even granting we take your "evidence" seriously, it still proves exactly nothing about the vaccines. It would be, again, like saying that people have died of the polio vaccine. Even if that's true, it proves exactly nothing about whether one should get a polio vaccine.
The studies you cited, which you ignored, also make it very clear that they should NOT be used to sway people not to take the vaccines. Interesting you leave that out, as it undermines your entire argument. Ask yourself why your own sources are stressing that and get back to me.
Quoting AJJ
It's very clear who isn't "thinking" here: you, the anti-vaxxer. Again, take it up with the CDC and WHO. Keep fighting the good fight to promote misinformation and dissuade people from being vaccinated -- your ignorance is getting people killed worldwide. It's dangerous, and the only normal response should be embarrassment and retraction.
Again -- not holding my breath.
:100:
I point out that you’re arbitrarily dismissing the examples and statistics I linked to and begging question. Your response is to do the same thing again. You can’t see it; hardly anyone can.
Quoting Xtrix
I expect you’d say that about any evidence. A coroner rules that woman has died from a vaccine induced blood clot. A number of countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine over blood clot fears. A study links the Pfizer vaccine to blood clots also. Many reports have been made of deaths and health conditions following a vaccine dose. You yourself make an example of the will on your side to dismiss or downplay these occurrences.
You say my ignorance is getting people killed. Would it surprise you to learn that I think the same of you (and with better cause, considering the caliber of your argument)?
You apparently don't know what "begging the question" means.
I haven't arbitrarily dismissed the examples -- I'm quoting FROM the examples, which state explicitly that one should not use these cases as reasons not to take the vaccine. Very strange, given your use of them to support exactly that.
Quoting AJJ
No, this is what the article said. The doctor said it was "likely," that's not conclusive. It's also ONE case out of hundreds of millions of doses given -- which you repeatedly want to ignore.
But again, let's assume it's true. This proves what, exactly? Because, as the articles state, it certainly doesn't prove you shouldn't take the vaccines. So it proves that there ARE freak cases out there, which I already anticipated several posts ago, that occur -- as with any vaccine or any product whatsoever? Is this the point you're making?
Quoting AJJ
And Johnson and Johnson, yes. Look at the conclusions to those pauses.
Quoting AJJ
It does not, as the article mentions.
Quoting AJJ
Many reports have been made of death and health conditions following taking ibuprofen. I guess that settles it.
By "reports" you mean anecdotes, not studies. Anecdotes, I repeat, are not evidence.
Quoting AJJ
It wouldn't, no. Given that 5.6 billion doses around the world have been given, however, I think the data speak for themselves -- even if we take your desperate and selective searching for "evidence" of "death and debilitation" seriously, it's still extremely safe and effective, especially compared to the COVID death rate and hospitalizations.
But like most anti-vaxxers, string together enough anecdotes, inconclusive studies, freak cases, etc., and this is enough to prove what they already wanted to believe.
I’ve been told this before, also by someone who liked begging the question. You’re inclined to argue simply by assuming your position is true.
Quoting Xtrix
I disagree with them. The JCVI partially disagrees with that claim in not recommending universal vaccination for 12-15 year olds. The important thing about the examples and statistics is that they show that death and health conditions can reasonably be thought to occur sometimes after a vaccine dose.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
It’s one example that demonstrates that it can happen. How much is it happening? How much is too much? In my view that number does not have to be high to justify people having the right to choose. And it’s not the only side-effect.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
And so I don’t wish to see the taking of Ibuprofen mandated and it’s reasonable for people to decline using it.
The MRHA is a system to which these things are reported. They are reports.
And so I don’t wish to see the driving of cars mandated and it’s reasonable for people to decline using them.
The purpose for which the analogy was offered flew right over your pointed little head. LOL! Car accidents are not the result of the vax. DOH! But a dummy might make that connection.
I misread your post and thought you’d said something about unrelated car accidents. But to my awareness cognitive difficulty is another possible symptom of these vaccines, and so car accidents could potentially be linked to them.
Add "another possible" to "consideration" and "cause for concern". Do you actually think you walk in the footsteps of Socrates? Are you just fulfilling that role of questioning authority? A public service of thinking being a critic = critical thinking? Why you, AJJ? I mean, couldn't your side have found someone better to carry that water? Never mind. I'm done with you too, I guess.
No, by deferring to the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and by looking at evidence.
You, on the other, hand, as an anti-vaxxer, assume your position is true, and then search desperately for evidence that supports it.
Quoting AJJ
So you disagree with your own weak citations.
Thank you, but I'll go with their conclusions on this matter over an anti-vaxxer on the internet. I guess this is "begging the question."
Quoting AJJ
12-15 year olds are a different subject. That's currently being studied, as it should be. My guess is that this will be approved shortly.
You keep wanting to bring this up as if it supports your non-arguments. It doesn't.
Quoting AJJ
They do not, as the articles themselves say.
Quoting AJJ
I'll just quote myself at this point, to save time:
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting AJJ
They are not reports. They are not studies. They are data -- data which is misinterpreted by you and your anti-vaxxer "sources."
The clotting cases you cited are weak. It's hardly "death and debilitation," which is a delusion. It can be said of anything, given the rarity.
"The same clotting conditions were substantially more likely to occur — and over longer periods — among people infected with the coronavirus, the study found.
-- NY times
Ask yourself why the world's experts are recommending these vaccines. Is it a global conspiracy? Do you really think they don't have answers to your questions? Do you really think there's no studies and data and mountains of evidence behind it? I can point you to plenty of them.
Also, we're not talking mandates. We're talking whether people should take the vaccine. The answer is yes, they should -- not only for themselves, but for the community. They're safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus -- these are facts, however many times you want to assert the opposite. Your "disagreeing" with the very experts you cite is irrelevant to me. You're not an expert, and are in no position to do so.
Suddenly it's only about mandates, which is a different topic. We have had vaccine mandates for years, but that's simply not what's being discussed. If that's your issue, then stop making a fool of yourself attempting to argue against the vaccines safety and efficacy.
Talking to anti-vaxxers is basically talking to walls. It's a bad habit on my part. I think I do it in case others -- who are actually open to evidence and reasons -- see it and can be persuaded.
Yes, and their pivot was anticipated before it even happened. No matter what their current argument is, it will morph to new ground. Because it has nothing to do with science. Nothing whatsoever.
It's also interesting how some of those dying of Covid accepted other medical treatments that had not been approved by the FDA. And yet their lives were, in some cases, saved by those medicines.
Looking for evidence to support a view is called “thinking”, so it’s quite funny that you pour scorn on the endeavour.
Quoting Xtrix
I disagree with the parts that say people shouldn’t feel disinclined to get the vaccine. They can feel that (or otherwise) if they want.
No, that wouldn’t be begging the question.
Quoting Xtrix
The JCVI’s view shows there is that balance to consider between the vaccine’s benefits and it’s costs. This is what makes it relevant.
Quoting Xtrix
I posted a quotation from each showing that to be untrue.
Quoting Xtrix
Data based on reports made to the MRHA.
Quoting Xtrix
I posted a quotation from the article showing this isn’t true. Dying from a blood clot is both death and debilitation.
Quoting Xtrix
In the young and healthy?
Quoting Xtrix
Through witnessing arguments on social media and YouTube I discovered that most people, regardless of their qualifications and expertise, can’t reason their way to the end of a syllogism. How is it that a vaccinated individual is supposedly less likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated asymptomatic individual? Can you direct me to an answer to that, that takes into account what I’ve previously said?
Quoting Xtrix
This discussion opened with me saying it was perfectly reasonable to decline receiving the vaccine. Not that anyone should or shouldn’t take it.
Quoting Xtrix
This is question begging.
If you bring up the potential consequences of other things like ibuprofen then it’s pertinent for me to give the same view about them: you don’t have to do or take those things and it’s fine if you don’t.
Plus, even without a strict mandate there’s coercion happening as a consequence of views such as yours, so speaking against mandates comes into this.
No, it isn't. It's called being an anti-vaxxer, which is what you are.
Rather, look at the evidence and then form an opinion. Not the other way around.
Quoting AJJ
That's not the same as them being reports, or studies. A person "reporting" something is not a report. "A scientific report is a document that describes the process, progress, and or results of technical or scientific research or the state of a technical or scientific research problem."
Quoting AJJ
So one ("likely") example out of 5+ billion doses. Which is what I mentioned before with freak cases, of which this (if it's true) would qualify.
There is no death and debilitation with COVID vaccines. They're safe and effective, as the evidence shows. There's no death and debilitation with toothpaste, either. Toothpaste is safe and effective, as the evidence shows.
We don't make claims based on freak accidents and anecdotes. If we're serious.
Quoting AJJ
It's never a guarantee that you'll be asymptomatic. Those who are vaccinated protect themselves from getting sick, and the community at large. The more people vaccinated, the quicker we get to herd immunity. This is not simply an individual choice. I know anti-vaxxers like you don't want to hear that. Too bad.
Quoting AJJ
It isn't. Why? Because the vaccines are safe and effective. Given that over 5 billion doses have been given around the world, I think the data speak for themselves.
You, an anti-vaxxer, cite a case where a woman may have died after taking the vaccine, then state that you disagree with the doctors within this article that say it should in no way dissuade people from getting the vaccine.
5 billion vs. one freak (and inconclusive) case. Millions of deaths from COVID, millions of hospitalizations. Every major medical and scientific establishment advising vaccinations. Yet to anti-vaxxers, like you, it's "perfectly reasonable" to deny the vaccine. Sorry -- unless you have good reasons for doing so, it isn't reasonable to ignore what doctors and virologists are telling us to do.
Quoting AJJ
The premises do not assume the truth of the conclusion. Thus, it's not question-begging. You don't know what you're talking about.
That the vaccines are safe is a fact. This is based on overwhelming evidence, of which I've given a sample. That they are effective, likewise. That they slow the spread, likewise.
The conclusion, based on these facts, is that one should take the vaccine -- assuming, of course, that we want to end the pandemic and care about our health and the health of others.
Best to not use terms you don't understand.
This isn't about mandates.
I agree with Howard. AJJ and James, both anti-vaxxers, are included in this.
You’re entirely impartial, sure. If evidence supports a view then that’s what it does I’m afraid.
Quoting Xtrix
Check.
Quoting Xtrix
I posted a quotation from the article that showed the coroner’s verdict was far more definitive than that.
Quoting Xtrix
This is question begging.
Dying from a blood clot is both death and debilitation. Call it a “freak-case” if you like but underlying that is more question begging.
Quoting Xtrix
No, but young healthy people have a high chance of mild or asymptomatic infection. If they become ill they can distance themselves from vulnerable people. If they’re asymptomatic I haven’t seen it demonstrated that they’re any more likely to spread it than a vaccinated person.
Quoting Xtrix
This is question begging. You claim they’re safe by assuming they are and dismissing anything that casts doubt on the claim.
Quoting Xtrix
She did die after taking the vaccine.
Quoting Xtrix
It can be if you can think.
Quoting Xtrix
You assume these things and dismiss anything that casts doubt on them. It’s question begging.
Like most anti-vaxxers, you didn't read your own article. But it doesn't matter, because I'm willing to grant it as "true" -- I in fact anticipated this several posts earlier.
Cling to that one death if you want, that's fine. If you seriously think this proves the statement of "death and debilitation," which you clearly do, you're also welcome to that.
In that case, there's death and debilitation associated with literally everything, including walking in a field -- because people have been struck by lighting. So walking in a field involves death and debilitation. For anyone serious, this is simply laughable. But so be it.
Quoting AJJ
You don't know what that means, so stop using it.
Quoting AJJ
One case presented out of 5 billion doses is a freak case, yes. 5,000 cases would be freak cases, in that sense. More people die in bathtubs.
But keep trying.
Quoting AJJ
You don't understand what that means, so stop using it. Make you look like a bigger idiot than you already are, as an anti-vaxxer.
Quoting AJJ
It can be if you're a complete imbecile, too. Which is much more likely than an anti-vaxxer on the internet knowing more than thousands of the world's leading experts, who have dedicated their lives to studying these issues.
Quoting AJJ
You don't understand what that means, so stop using it.
It's not "assumed," it's supported by the overwhelming evidence. Anti-vaxxers like you reject this evidence, of course, but that proves about as much as the fact that flat Earthers and Creationists also deny evidence contrary to their beliefs.
This is from the article: “The coroner said: "Lisa died due to complications of an AstraZeneca Covid vaccination."”
Quoting Xtrix
Yeah, sometimes people with dogs get trampled by cows. It’s one reason why you wouldn’t say that people *should* walk their dog through a field of cows, and it’s reasonable for them to avoid doing so.
Quoting Xtrix
Underlying this characterisation is the assumption that it doesn’t happen often enough to be significant. Underlying that assumption is your principle one that vaccines are unequivocally safe. It’s question begging.
In that case, it's "reasonable" to do (or not to do) anything. Which is why your argument is delusional.
It's reasonable not to walk in a field, as there have been deaths by lightning. It's reasonable not to own a house, as they have collapsed. It's reasonable not to get in a tub, as people have slipped and died on them -- far more than from any vaccines, in fact. It's reasonable to ignore anti-vaxxers, given how many people have died of COVID. Etc.
Quoting AJJ
One case presented out of 5 billion isn't an assumption of insignificance. It's the definition of insignificance. Given that's the only evidence you've presented for "deaths" thus far, what else can be concluded?
Seems to me you're assuming significance where is there none. Which isn't surprising, given you're an anti-vaxxer.
Quoting AJJ
:lol:
You have no idea what that means, but by all means keep using it. I don't mind if you keep looking like a complete idiot.
For those following this odd discussion: this is not an "assumption," it is based on evidence and data. If data were presented that showed that there were a high percentage of deaths -- even something like 1% -- I would count that as significant. I would count 0.1% death rate from vaccinations as significant. The data do not show this.
If person deems those dangers to be significant then I’d at least say it’s fine for them to avoid them if doing so does them and others no substantial harm.
Quoting Xtrix
Again, your assumption is that it’s the only case, or that the case number, whatever it is, isn’t significant. I consider even just one case significant, but I don’t turn this into the view that people *shouldn’t* get the vaccine. My view is that it’s a choice and to decline it is fine.
Quoting Xtrix
You’ve been purposefully downplaying or dismissing the occurrences I’ve referred to, the examples and the statistics. You do this because you’ve made the assumption that the vaccines are unequivocally safe. This is both your premise and your conclusion. It’s a conformist assumption. It’s question begging.
No— one isn’t entitled to their own facts. 1 in 5 billion isn’t significant and isn’t a reasonable position to deny a vaccine, your “beliefs” aside.
And it does do others harm by denying the vaccine, because the vaccines help us come out of this pandemic— which is demonstrated by the evidence.
Quoting AJJ
Again, since you’re the one making the claim that it is significant, the onus is on you to demonstrate it. You’ve cited one example. There may very well be other cases— maybe millions of cases. I’m unaware of that evidence, and I’ve looked. By all means point to studies confirming your claims.
Quoting AJJ
One in 5 billion is significant to you. Got it.
On those grounds, you really shouldn’t do anything at all, as there are significant risks of death by this standard.
Funny that these are the lengths anti vaxxers, like you, have to go through to justify such an idiotic position. Shame.
Quoting AJJ
The examples you cite are rife with problems, but as I’ve stated multiple times— and which you don’t understand— is that I’m willing to grant they’re true for the sake of argument.
Even with that — assuming 1440 deaths, or even ten times that much— it’s statistically insignificant. Sorry if you don’t like math.
Conformist assumptions. You assume mass vaccination of the young and healthy is substantially helpful. You assume the consequences of the vaccines are insignificant. You don’t demonstrate either of these things. You employ these assumptions in question begging arguments.
Nope. Facts- which you deny, as all anti-vaxxers do. Very common.
____
From the CDC:
Over 369 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been given in the United States from December 14, 2020, through August 30, 2021.
COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. COVID-19 vaccines were evaluated in tens of thousands of participants in clinical trials. The vaccines met the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) rigorous scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality needed to support approval or authorization of a vaccine.
Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines since they were authorized for emergency use by FDA. These vaccines have undergone and will continue to undergo the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history. This monitoring includes using both established and new safety monitoring systems pdf icon[PDF – 83 KB] to make sure that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.
_____
Those pesky doctors, scientists, and experts. All making such big “assumptions.”
lol
You read this stuff and you conform. No questioning—only frightened, dim-witted conformity.
Says the anti-vaxxer. :lol:
Go look for Big Foot while you’re at it, genius.
As an avid social distancer he’s probably more up your street.
Many have claimed to have sighted him -- so the chances he exists are significant.
For anyone serious, who have legitimate questions about safety and efficacy.
Johns Hopkins is arguably the best hospital in the United States.
Yes, I read what experts say. You ignore what they say, because you’re an anti-vaxxer and, as demonstrated here, an otherwise complete buffoon. Enjoy.