Coronavirus
Coronavirus, COVID-19, is spreading exponentially. So far we have seen news reports from countries where there is an organised and rapid response to outbreaks. But what we are beginning to see now is it's rate of infection in countries without such preparedness. Italy and more worrying Iran. Italy is adopting a very strict strategy now, after being slow to tackle the infection. Whereas Iran is in denial, they are refusing to quarantine suspected cases. They have refused to lock down an important religious site which appears to be the epicentre of their outbreak. Also it has been spreading amongst the political class. There is talk of it's spreading rapidly throughout the Middle East.
What concerns me is that the chaos which will ensue in the Middle East, the virus will find a breeding ground and develop into a more deadly strain. Similarly to the way that Spanish Flu developed during the chaos of the First World War.
Should we be worried, or should we just wait until a vaccination is developed so that we can irradicate it through a vaccination programme?
Or is this the beginning of a deadly pandemic?
What concerns me is that the chaos which will ensue in the Middle East, the virus will find a breeding ground and develop into a more deadly strain. Similarly to the way that Spanish Flu developed during the chaos of the First World War.
Should we be worried, or should we just wait until a vaccination is developed so that we can irradicate it through a vaccination programme?
Or is this the beginning of a deadly pandemic?
Comments (8466)
If you strike out every single other reference to any data with equal or lesser statistical rigour. Are you prepared to do that? I'd hazard a guess this thread would end up looking like I'm talking to myself most of the time.
So this is just about niceness? Fine, I'm judgy and mean. I would have conceded that before we began and saved ourselves time.
My point is that while you have a libertarian sort of right to make bad decisions, it's a bad decision to make bad decisions, even if you have the right to do it.
It's not about an uncontrolled variable in one cohort (although it could be, they haven't checked), it's that the Odds Ratio which applies to the population as a whole is almost certainly not going to apply to any given cohort within it. A vaccine if you you're elderly and ill is going to massively help your chances. One if you're young and healthy might make no difference at all, all you're seeing in that figure is the average effect.
As a lay person, I won’t pretend to engage the merits of anything said by the 30 experts you reference. Instead, I will stipulate to some facts about them:
1. They exist;
2. They are experts;
3. They say what you say they say;
4. What they say conflicts with what we are being told by other experts and the policy makers who rely upon those other experts.
For simplicities sake, let’s refer to the experts as “your experts” and “my experts.”
The next logical step would be to ask my experts how they respond to what your experts have said.
My recommendation for you, as the next logical step in your apparent desire to dive into this alleged scientific argument, would be to do just that. What have my experts had to say about what your experts have to say?
I have no desire to take that dive. But if you are really interested in the issue, you simply cannot rely solely upon your experts as I am doing with mine. If there is a conflict within their community, there are protocols for sussing out the issue.
We all know the history of science, and how some scientists were marginalized, ostracized, left out of journals and ignored. Communities have cliques and one not playing ball in their community, well, their opinions can be buried for scientific, or simple personality reasons. But, having been made aware of the past problems, where it turns out the outsider was actually right all along, the professions have developed ways of making sure that outside views are dealt with. It’s called “peer review.”
In a case such as this, my guys could not simply ignore your guys. Nor could your guys simply ignore my guys. Surely, in your research, you have found “the nut.” The nut is the fundamental disagreement where the views of the respective parties have been refined and set forth and the “white paper” on the nut has been written for folks like you, me and the policy makers.
“John says X, Bob says Y. Here is the statement of the case by each, the response thereto, and then the rebuttal to the response of each to the other.”
That is where I would go if I were you. I would be upset with my policy makers, Fauci, et al, if I found out they had not already been there. It’s happened before. Policy makers ignore the science and proceed in a different direction. If you find that is the case, I’d love to hear it.
One thing that has me comfortable with my guys is that the policy makers, while making policy, are actually putting my-guy scientists out there in front of the camera and alleging that they, the policy makers, are relying upon them. Compare: Republican policy makers often do all the talking and don’t put their experts out front. You’d think, if they had any experts that say “Don’t distance” or “don’t mask” or “don’t vax” then we’d have them out front. If not where else than on Faux News? Protocols simply won’t allow for alleged MSM conspiracies to bury the science in support of Republican policy.
Anyway, I’m satisfied with my guys. You, however, as a seeker of truth on the matter, might consider looking for it. What do my guys say about your guys? Then, what do your guys say about what my guys say about your guys. If you chase that down to the end, like we do in legal research, you will find the nut. There may be disagreement there, but you’ll find the nut.
We need people like you to do that for us. Good luck. Hopefully, if there is any there there, you can play a part in forcing your guys to do a better job than they are doing.
As for me, I'm just going to take a risk and take a shot. I haven't understood how that might hurt anyone other than myself or those who have joined me in the risk.
Further this affiant sayeth naught.
Not 'niceness' no.
Quoting Hanover
It's not a bad decision. It's a different decision. A bad decision is one which can be shown to fail, or one which can be shown to be irrational. Neither charge has been carried. I've made my decision using perfectly coherent arguments from data provided by experts in their field (more than one). Decisions of this sort are alternatives in a complex situation, not 'bad'.
Now we're arguing fairness. I thought we were talking about whether invalid data should be considered, but now you're saying you get to argue bullshit because you think you're opponents are arguing bullshit. At least with the Facebook data, everyone is in agreement it's bullshit (as opposed to other data where there is dispute over the legitimacy), so in this instance, you now agree it should be disregarded? Or, do you reserve the right to openly, knowingly, and intentionally argue from data you know to be invalid?
I'm not arguing from it. None of my supporting arguments rely on it. I'm just saying that there's bigger fish to fry if poorly evidenced opinion is an issue for you.
I must have been in a different discussion group. My recollection was that you were arguing your decision not to vaccinate was supported by a study that showed a correlation between PhDs and vaccine hesitancy, and which you further opined that those PhDs consisted of epidemiologists and other PhDs (statisticians and economists) with specific knowledge on the subject of data manipulation. That was a counter argument to a poster who suggested the vaccine hesitant PhDs were likely physicists.
It would help if you quoted the part of my post you think says that. It's certainly not what I intended to say, I've provided several dozen articles from respected medical journals to support my argument, I don't need a pre-print Gallup poll.
Quoting Hanover
That's my personal experience, yes. I did make that clear. As I said, strike such idle speculation from the record if you prefer, but the speculation to which it was a response was no less idle.
I'm not starting all over again simply to act as your whipping post. I've laid out my argument in these 200 some pages. If you've an interest simply read back through them.
I have already done as you suggest, I'm not an idiot. I have a PhD and, until a few years ago held a professorship at one of the 'better' (ahem!) UK universities. I know how to research. If you think a little to-ing and fro-ing between disputing parties results in anything other than the further entrenchment of those conflicting positions then you, evidently, do not. There's a reason you have a jury, right?
There is. The public sits on it. I sit on it. The policy makers sit on it. You *should* sit on it. But you sound like a party, or an advocate; not a finder of fact or a ruler of law searching for truth.
Where is the White Paper? Where is the nut? All I've seen from you is the "to-ing and fro-ing between disputing parties". Those are the weeds we don't want or need to get into. That, and your above crowing about your PhD and professorship and other irrelevant BS that is the equivalent of an appeal to authority that you accuse me of. We, the jury are not looking for your creds. We've already stipulated to your guy's creds. You aren't an epidemiologist or virologist, etc. You don't have those creds. Neither do we. If you are a researcher, where is the nut, the white paper we're looking for? Where is what my guys say about your guys? Keep researching and get back to us. Or haven't your research skills found it?
"They found 23.9 percent of the people who said they hold Ph.D. degrees expressed hesitancy, the highest rate among the various levels of education.
But some of their work appears to be misrepresented online, missing the overall point that hesitancy dropped.
“There are people that can kind of take a data point and twist it around to mean something that it doesn’t mean, and that’s unfortunate,” King said.
A sensitivity analysis found some people answered in the extreme ends of some demographic categories to throw off some of the numbers. King said it appeared to be a “concerted effort” that “did make the hesitancy prevalence in the Ph.D. group look higher than it really is.”
For example, they observed higher hesitancy rates than expected in the oldest age group — 75 and over — as well as the top end in terms of education level.
“We found that people basically used it to write in political … statements,” King said. “So they weren’t genuine responses. They didn’t really complete the survey in good faith.”
There were some other issues.
The study hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet.
People taking the survey were on the honor system, with no way to make sure people who claimed to have Ph.D. degrees actually have them.
And the Ph.D. group does not include medical doctors or nurses.
“So it’s not representative of the medical profession,” King said."
Well, in a rationing situation, volunteering to go without is generally considered praiseworthy, within limits. You've got that part covered.
But say I have a group of twenty men and I need six volunteers for a dangerous mission. Do you expect praise for throwing up your hand and volunteering to be one of the 14 who stay behind? Your math is fine, but it's no use saying, some of us will stay and some of us will go to, we're each doing our part. They're not equivalent.
So I could just say here that, sure, your abstaining advances one goal but not the other, and leave it at that.
But even the goals are not on the same footing. Conserving vaccine is only a useful sub-goal insofar as it helps advance the goal of getting the human race, and each community within it, to herd immunity. If we work too hard at conserving vaccine, we work counter to our goal of actually administering vaccinations. There is no parity here.
There is hunger in the world. Do you help the hungry by refusing food they would love to get their hands on? What would they think of your refusal?
Another question: leaving aside the ickiness with boosters for a moment, if every county in the United States was over 70%, how many doses would public health officials feel they need to stockpile, rather than letting them get sent elsewhere? What if slow uptake here is one of the reasons we're not sending more abroad?
To stay at 70%, we'll have to give boosters.
Well no. But it's not a dangerous mission is it? Getting the vaccine gives you (as we've just been emphatically told) 29.2 times less chance of getting sick. How's that the 'dangerous mission ' element of this analogy. If you believe the CDC etc, I'm the one doing the dangerous bit.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Virtue ethics. Consequentualism isn't the only game in town. I don't eat excess because it's wrong, not because I actually think my saved food will get to the starving. Do you really think our excess can be excused by citing admin problems?
Interesting, thanks. I'd love to see the analysis done to reach those conclusions. Maybe the EU will let me see the paper someday.
The data came off Facebook with no verification. That's enough to ignore it.
Indeed. So one wonders what possessed them to conduct, gather, analyse and write up the data if they knew all along it was just going to be a load of lies. Had it shown only a preponderance of uneducated Trumpers having such notions would we be questioning it?
Seems either a political stunt gone wrong, a very stupid bit of research, or an OK (if not perfect) methodology (given the vast sample size) which is being hurriedly discredited because it gave the 'wrong' answer.
It's very stupid research.
Meanwhile, someone in Alabama is charging people $250 for vaccination and people are refraining because they can't afford it.
It's free.
That seems pretty unlikely. Undergrads should be aware of the malleability of stats. I doubt you need a PhD for this; nor would a PhD in English Lit lead to a deep understanding of inference from statistics.
It's a curious anomaly. Given that those with PhD's make up about 1% of the population yet those who did not finish high school make up about 10%, the numbers still suggest a correlation between hesitancy and lack of education. Does the data show how many claimed to have a doctorate? Did the researchers check they were reporting the truth?
The only reasonable conclusion is that a further study might be interesting.
Undergrads are, in my experience, sorely unaware of the limits of their stats, but you're spot on about the non-scientific PhDs, I didn't think of those, probably not to do with stats then, but as @franks earlier citation showed, the research seems flawed anyway, so the question is moot. The more interesting question is why such an obviously flawed piece of research got as far as pre-print without anyone mentioning the issues. What were they expecting?
Good lord, Isaac, that's not the point. I need six guys to move some furniture; you volunteer to be one of the guys who doesn't. The point is that counting doing nothing as "each of us doing their part" is sophistry.
Quoting Isaac
No one is asking you to gorge yourself on the vaccine, just to get the minimum.
Notice that Banjo did exactly what you suggested. He didn't know it was flawed. He threw it out because he didn't like it.
It's not hard work to get a vaccine and it's entirely beneficial to those getting it, so I really can't see how even moving furniture works. You're still painting getting the vaccine as if it were harder or more dangerous or in some other way 'more' than not getting it. Apart from a ten minute diversion to one's day, it nothing, it's no 'sacrifice' is it?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Most countries in the world currently have barely enough to reach 10%. The WHO, and both Europe's and the UK's vaccine advisors have advised that restraint will be necessary to ensure equitable distribution. This is not a controversial position in that respect. The head of the WHO called it 'grotesque'.
Yes, well...
That's a fair assessment, and, if I was going to do something along those lines I don't think it would be an absolutely terrible preliminary approach. The subsequent juggling of hot potatoes at even the suggestion of intelligent people being vaccine hesitant should not, however, be a necessary step. But these are the days we're in...
Well it must be more something you don't like, or you'd just do it, right?
Why must my motive only be selfish? Has nothing I've said about my motives been taken with even the slightest benefit of an assumption of honesty?
Not selfish, but meaningful to you, something that makes sense to you, is reasonable to you. You're the one making the choice, what else could your reasons be?
As near as I can tell, the most you can claim so far is that you're doing your part to keep too many people in the UK (yes?) from getting vaccinated. If the UK has already reached herd immunity, then good for you. If not, then you're advancing the wrong goal, aren't you?
Shame. The authors now seems to think a mass conspiracy of fraudulent responses was to blame, possible with the numbers.
It just sounds really wierd to me, to set up such a survey, put in all that work and then within days say "the results aren't to be trusted". I've rejected some bad study methodologies in my time, but... here we've got a very politically sensitive topic where the researchers have been confident enough in their methodology to go to preprint, got a politically unpopular result and then turned round and said their methodology was shite afterall.
Whatever comes of it, and whatever actually happened, it doesn't do objective science any favours.
Where's that?
Seems to me that spotting fraud would be fairly straight forward in such a big study. If 5% of respondents claimed to have a PhD, I would bet on a fraud. It seems unlikely that FaceBook has special appeal for PhD recipients...
Do you have access to more details?
Well, the world needs herd immunity, not just the UK.
I just can't see how this is so complicated, it's like people are doing this convoluted mental gymnastics to get the media message to fit.
There's not enough x for everyone who needs it. Taking a x when others need it more is wrong.
That seems like a relatively tried and tested moral position.
You could argue that I do need it, you could argue that others around me need me to take it, but those would both be technical arguments. I'll even grant you've the consensus on your side there.
But the moral argument, given what I believe (with appropriate qualified justification, of course) about the technical case... I really can't see the difficulty.
Frank found this https://www.wnct.com/news/north-carolina/fact-check-setting-the-record-straight-on-claims-about-vaccine-hesitancy-among-ph-d-s/
But I can't access it, for some reason (EU data laws or something), so he summarised it for me here
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/585094
That's all I've got to go on I'm afraid.
Frank was a bit selective. Here's the whole text:
King is not rejecting the data, but pointing to it's inadequacies - which are much the same as we agreed, above.
The link is to https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full.pdf. The graphs are clearer in this version.
The data for PhD's is listed on p17, at 2% of respondents. Looks about what one might expect. While one would expect to see about 10% with less than high school education, the figure in the survey is 17%.
Oddly, there doesn't seem to be an age bias, either. It'll be interesting to see the final paper.
OK, maybe I didn't read the article closely enough. I agree with you that it's important to get the information as to why a patient has been admitted to hospital right.
Hmmm. This is not what I understood you to be arguing.
If I'm to take you at your word here, your claim is not just that you're under no moral obligation to get vaccinated, but all of us in richer countries are under a moral obligation not to, you, me, basically everyone on this forum, I'd guess.
(I'm assuming there's some geographical grouping going on, that you don't mean the world's population can be ranked individually from 1 to 7 billion whatever in order of need.)
I'm a little confused now and will have a rethink.
:up:
While you are at it, ask yourself, if true, how best to go about convincing others to not get it. You know, without turning them off to it. And without turning off those who you are trying to get it to. I suppose you could try to prove that smart people have questions. Yeah, that's the ticket. Sounds pretty moral to me.
Heaven forbid we call it "good" and pour all resources into making it ubiquitous. Better to throw shade. After all, we have horse dewormer and bleach to tide us over. Speaking of tide, we also have Tide. Got a pod, bro?
Thanks. It's this I found odd
Running a sensitivity analysis on this kind of data is no small undertaking for a start, but I can't see what form of sensitivity analysis they would have run on these numbers without prior assumptions for the expected distributions (for which there wouldn't really be any reasonable ones to make without biasing the methodology). To reduce the phenomena to one which is entirely in line with the 'increasing education decreases hesitancy' model, you'd need below 8% PhDs hesitant, plus we'd need to assume (following the model function) that something like 6% of the 23.9 were genuine PhD holders who were vaccine hesitant. A reduction of 2% was expected, an increase of 16% was found. Explaining this by dishonesty would require, by my calculations, around 1600 dishonest respondents, with the intent to bias the results against the expectation. That sounds a lot to start with, to have all had the same idea, but it's not impossible in the large sample size. But, again, without biasing the interpretation, we'd have to initially assume there were an equal number of people wishing to bias the results in favour of the expectation, so they'd have to so sensitivity analysis on the numbers in favour of the vaccine claiming they had PhDs to make their opinion sound more authoritative. I don't see how, without additional data, their sensitivity analysis could have divided those two groups.
Also
Yet they say that
So that's not really a misrepresentation, as far as I can see, though without having the apparently misrepresenting quotes, it's hard to tell.
Finally this is intriguing
Am I missing something? I don't see the data on what the PhD is in - it would answer a lot of our questions if we could see that. Hopefully that data will be in final paper.
More questions than answers, but thanks for posting the full text anyway.
Presumably - and I am speculating - the survey included doctors and nurses in the professional qualification category?
Note also that the steady level of the PhD result was commented on; much the same for the duration fo the study, unlike the other levels. Might be simply sample size.
I don't see that anything can be concluded safely.
To avoid any of that confusion, the authors could have just verified the data.
Quoting Banno
So you misrepresent me in retaliation. Ridiculous as usual.
To be fair, it's not only what I'm arguing, so there's room for justified confusion. I'm more responding to comments than laying out a case, so have no right to expect anyone to 'get it'. I was a little short in my last post in that respect.
In that light, what I'm arguing is an opposition to the moral case for vaccination in all cases (the idea that a moral finger can be wagged simply because someone says "I'm not getting vaccinated" (outside of any medical reason).
The moral case, as I've heard it is this.
1. You ought to be vaccinated because reducing your risk of disease needing hospital care is a moral obligation and the vaccine achieves that.
2. You ought to take the vaccine because reducing your risk of harming others is a moral obligation and vaccine does that by reducing your chances of transmitting the virus.
3. You ought to take the vaccine because there's a global effort to eliminate (or make endemic) the virus by achieving herd immunity and the vaccine is the most efficient way of doing that.
I think all three lack sufficient normative weight.
For (1):
a) this is not conclusively true for all age groups, there's genuine expert dispute about the balance of risks/benefits for the under 24 age bracket, with the weight of naysayers getting higher as you reach the under 12s. It is not normal practice to morally require any offence against bodily autonomy on the grounds of a balance of probabilities, it's normally insufficient to say "it seems slightly more likely than not that this will cause more good than harm, therefore you ought to do it, even if you don't want to". There's just no precedent for such a norm as far as I can see. Normally it need be overwhelmingly clear and with children it is definitely not so.
b) for other age/health groups, whilst this claim is true, it does not necessarily reduce the risk of needing hospital care from a risk which isn't already below the threshold risk we normally accept for various lifestyle choices and activities. We normally only require people to reduce that risk to below a reasonable threshold, we do not normally demand that it is as low as it is possible to get it. It has been countered that being unvaccinated is not an activity or lifestyle choice, or that it is irrational and so doesn't count. I find both arguments to be pretty arbitrary and post hoc, and so uncompelling. What classes as a lifestyle choice is in the eye of the life whose style is in question, otherwise it wouldn't class as a 'choice', and nowhere is it argued that irrational choices are exempt from this reasonableness limitation.
(2) I find most compelling of the three, but my reservations are;
a) the evidence is again only a balance of probabilities; there has only been a few studies and none of them show a strong reduction, none of them divide that reduction into cohorts who might be expected to have lower/higher transmission rates and none of them are wide enough to capture all such cohorts in any case. Again we don't normally require actions against bodily autonomy on the basis of a balance of probabilities - for example the MMR vaccine is not merely 'more likely than not' to be beneficial to the average child and others at their school, it is overwhelmingly and conclusively proven to be so.
b) there's again no understanding of the threshold of reasonableness which is associated with other moral duties. It is not normally required to reduce one's risk of harming others down to as low as it can possibly go, only to below a certain reasonable threshold. Masking, distancing, and hygiene can already do this. A vaccine would do more, but there are hundreds of cases where we could all do more to prevent harm to others (I gave the examples of health and safety precautions, environmental lifestyle changes...). There's no similar moral imperative on those issues.
(3) is the argument we're having now. I don't believe we can justify just any means of achieving that end, no matter how noble the end is. Getting the world to herd immunity requires equitable distribution and, in our current circumstances, that requires prioritising the needy at the expense of those at lower risk. It has been countered that this is pointless because such prioritisation isn't going to happen anyway, but I don't find that compelling because;
a) I'm not a consequentialist. As I said - "There's not enough x for everyone who needs it. Taking a x when others need it more is wrong". I see this as simply moral a truth, for me.
b) I don't think it's at all clear that this is the case. A lower demand in rich countries could well see the pharmaceuticals look more favourably on deals with the poorer ones.
___
I'm also arguing, separately, that there is a finite space of public fora to sway political opinion and spending all of that space of trying to shame a handful of lunatics and smaller handful of legitimate concerned parties is manifestly irresponsible when we are in the midst of a crisis which is almost entirely the result of massive failings by our collective governments and institutions, who are currently sheltering behind the idea that the vaccine hesitant are entirely to blame.
I hope that clears things up.
Ah, yes, that may be it. But if so, their claim is misleading. The only PhDs excluded from the last category would be active doctors and nurses. The implication they attempted to give it was that the PhDs in question were not medical and so their high prevalence shouldn't carry the weight used in the interpretations they're opposing. This is not something they can claim simply by excluding those currently engaged as professional doctors. No epidemiologists, nor many virologists, for example, would fall into that category.
Quoting Banno
I see it was commented on in the paper, I was referring to the later comments. The article is an attempt to say that some interpretations of their study regarding the levels of hesitancy among PhDs were misleading and in it they say that hesitancy drops overall. I'm just saying that that comment itself is misleading in an article about hesitancy among PhDs (the only group for whom hesitancy did not drop), but I'd be happy to put that down to nothing more than the casual nature of the article (it's only an interview, not a paper)
Quoting Banno
Yes, I agree, but some things can be called into reasonable doubt. There is reasonable doubt that vaccine hesitancy can be ameliorated by education alone. That's important for policy-makers, who don't have the luxury of waiting for the full weight of multiple repeated studies.
Odd. It was @Isaac, not you, whom I had taken to be thinking King was rejecting the data; the conversation was following on from my previous reply to him, here where he said:
Quoting Isaac
I've said nothing much to you; a policy I plan to continue.
That's a lot of verification. There'd have to have been a concomitant reduction in sample size, which may have been a trade-off they weren't willing to make in a scoping experiment.
Wouldn't you prefer good data to a large sample size? It's Facebook. It's a wacky domain to begin with.
Oooo, that'd be pushing it. We might agree that there is at least something here that is worth a second look. The data for those with masters qualifications or less represents the bulk of the population, after all; and the relation between education and hesitancy is undeniable in that group.
I think that's about all that we can conclude.
A scoping study often sacrifices quality of data for sample size. The idea is just to see if there's anything interesting to investigate, a good hypothesis can then be constructed which better quality data can confirm or reject. I'd say this exercise certainly brought up something interesting to investigate, but in the current political climate, that ain't gonna happen.
Yes, you're right. Of course, the 'education' being thought of in the 'education ameliorates vaccine hesitancy' argument is not really PhD level. Only on my second cup of tea this morning, not yet fully awake.
There's nothing stopping them.
Really?
https://www.thelocal.se/20210219/swedish-officials-report-escalated-threats-and-hate-in-coronavirus-debate/
Tea? There's your problem, right there...
I gather from the ambience hereabouts that I've walked back into a bit of a shitstorm. I'm not going to go back over the two hundred posts to see who said what, but I take it that there has been a bit of a pile-on with you at the bottom.
My comment here was not intended to be part of that. It was directed to @Prishon's apparent lack of erudition, which it now seems was a result of drugs and lack of sleep rather than a lack of knowledge. My apologies for causing offence.
So it goes. Perhaps I should change to tea.
Just steer clear of Sweden. :lol:
Ha! I'm a semi-retired British academic...what can I do...there are laws about these things. They've only just rescinded the requirement to smoke a pipe. Elbow patches on tweed are still mandatory though.
Quoting Banno
Thanks, I appreciate that. It did come at something of a bad time, not your fault.
Quoting Banno
Yes, do. I have a couple of spare tweed jackets going too if you want the full immersive experience.
Now where did you get THAT idea? My insomnia was caused by the ABSENCE of drugs. Havent found the Italics button yet.
...and to think @Banno was suggesting a lack of erudition...
Woah. Hipster grunge combo?
I would argue that an issue caused by the absence of drugs is indeed the result of drugs.
It's next to the BOLD button.
I don't follow fashion; I am fashion.
Yes, thats a good point indeed! Thanks
I'm ordering the flannelette as we speak...
Indeed! He hangs up erudition very high in the tree of trviality. Triviality tree stands high and powerful. Waving its leaves in the wind of ignorance.
Sounds pretty trivial...
What indignation? That of me?
Banno's come to be a peacemaker where there was no war. :chin:
Sometimes war is for the best of all..
It makes interesting art. Do you like Anselm Kiefer?
Now we're talking! I like that piece where something is coming out. To attack you. A big painting.
Magritte was a weird guy.
That's the one! I dont know Magritte personally but that minds eye I like. I did a simiiar one. A copy in fact. But the blue sky with clouds replaced by thunder and lightning. He was a bit too optimistc ..
"Magritte as artist was critical of the desire in people to capture a thing, own it, and then get rid of it, thus making reality smaller and more “manageable.”"
I like that.
Beautiful paint! :flower:
I'd like to see his paintings in person. A lot of them are huge. He grew up in Germany after the war, playing in the rubble of blown up buildings. The beauty of desolation and decay became part of him.
Then I was on the right track before...
I think I'm starting to get a sense of what's going on here, so I'm going to throw this out there before it's entirely clear to me:
Suppose you see someone fall into the river you're walking along, and your moral code says if you can save them you should, what do you do?
I'm going to halt the proceedings here, because we need to backtrack already.
"Save" is a success verb; you cannot choose to save someone, or not; you can only choose to make the attempt, or not. So what's a useful version of our moral rule here? Is it "If you can save them, you should try to"?
But "save" is still in there causing trouble. How do you know whether you can save them?
How about "If you think you could save them, you should try to"? That's not bad, but "could" masks a pretty big range of likely outcomes, from "I stand a damn good chance of saving them to" to "it's just barely possible for me to save them", so we have to consider your confidence in success, right?
Even leaving out considerations of risk to yourself, we've already noticeably complicated our rule, and it's not quite clear where we're headed. Here's why: this is just typical decision theory nonsense, making choices under uncertainty, blah blah blah, but we're trying to construct a normative rule.
If we end up with something like "If you're pretty sure you can save them, you should try", that's not so bad, I guess. But if we shift things around a little, we might end up saying, "If you're pretty sure you can save them, you should probably try", and that doesn't sound like the kind of rule we wanted. It's more a description than a rule.
As it happens, the situation we've been discussing here comes with a bunch of probabilities already on display, and some known gaps where we don't have probabilities we want, all of which can readily be made to add up to a summary description like, "If you can get vaccinated, you probably should." But "probably" doesn't mean everyone always, so the "should" just doesn't carry the force we expect it to. That's a descriptive summary, not a moral imperative.
Here's what I'm thinking: once you've gotten to "you probably should get vaccinated", you still haven't actually touched the moral question. It looks kinda like you have, but this is still just description. What we need to look at is statements like, "If you're pretty sure you can help stop the pandemic, you should try to" and its close relatives.
Not vaccinated. Dad works at a hospital, where she took her final breath.
Dad got it, Mom got it and had to be hospitalized with no ventilator, brother got it and is handling it at home.
Devestation is happening all around us my friends.
I keep looking for the "best of times" seeing as we are surviving "the worst of times".
curious, are you aware when the last time was they had to set up triage because of a "serious" flu?
I'm not saying legal reasoning should control here, but, to the extent it tracks logic, it might throw some light. We generally have burden's of proof and scope's of review. Someone comes forward with evidence in support of an argument, which shifts the burden to those in opposition. Those in opposition reply, and then there is a rebuttal to the reply. When counter-actions are filed, then the simultaneous exchange occurs in the opposite direction.
But all of that is for naught if the parties are not talking to each other, and there is no central clearing house (finder of fact).
You then not only have the moral case for vaccination in all cases, with a moral finger wagging simply because someone says "I'm not getting vaccinated" (outside of any medical reason) on one side, but you also have people trying to make a moral case against that case simply for what reason? To the extent they have assumed their burden of proof to explain why "I'm not getting vaccinated", they have not rebutted the reply. In such a case, they appear to be obstinate little babies who do not accept jurisdiction of the finder of fact. They are like the sovereign citizen who appears before the court claiming that he is answerable only to his particular interpretation of the common law and is not subject to any government statutes or proceedings.
In this light, they are not peers subject to peer review.
It's sad, really. But that is the way it is.
On the other hand, if I implied too much too soon, then I'd beg, again, for the exchange. So far, crickets.
The jury doesn't have to spend 20 years in school and 20 years in practice. Nor should they. All they need is to listen to the arguments exchanged and summarized. What did Bob say about what John said, and what did John say about what Bob said about what John said? Then, to the extent Bob said anything, what did John say about that, and what did Bod say about what John said? Again, crickets.
If it's out there, then you'd think one versed in research could find it. Maybe it's not out there. In which case I'll take a risk and ride with the "peers." I will wag my finger and morally and rightously so.
Or Australia. We can pretty accurately predict how many Australians are going to die when they come off lockdown. Jeese
The Australian government based on its medical advice advocates 80%. I agree with you that resources should be shared equitably, but if supply is not adequate and the vaccine was shared equally across the world then perhaps no communities would reach an adequate level of vaccination fast enough.
Yes, I agree. But moral imperatives don't normally carry a means. "You should help the poor" doesn't include in it which charity to donate to. Even something seemingly specific like "you should not disturb your neighbours with load music" does not detail whether to turn the music down or soundproof your walls. I can't really think of a moral imperative which contains within it the means by which you must meet the ends being prescribed (or avoid those being proscribed).
So "you ought to take the vaccine" doesn't seem to be the sort of thing can stand as a moral imperative anyway. It's "you should not overburden your health services", "you should not put others at risk of illness",... where taking a vaccine is just a means to that end.
So here, we don't need 'probably' at all. These are categorical. The probability arises with regards to the means. For my loud music example - "Your windows are quite large, you'll probably need to turn the music down, soundproofing probably won't work" - the imperative itself is still absolute.
Taking just the first "you should not overburden your health services", if you're fit and healthy, you might have that one covered already, even in a pandemic. If not, you may need to take extra precautions like vaccination. It's not the moral ends which contains the uncertainty, it's the means.
Again, I'm not saying anything controversial here. We all think we should help those poorer than ourselves. We expect a rich man to give more than a poor one. We don't trouble ourselves with the excessively convoluted - "you should probably give £100 to the poor, but it depends how rich you are".
Here's Susan Pennings writing on the issue you raise in the Journal of Medical Ethics
Well the simple answer is I doubt it, but I'm afraid I've no idea why you would be asking me, nor what the question has to do with my insulting Prishon's lack of erudition.
Yes, there's some disagreement there to.
Quoting Janus
Perhaps. But if that were the case, then vaccination (alone) wouldn't be a very good strategy would it? Like building a life raft whilst the boat's sinking.
Luckily, there's every indication that enough vaccine can be produced for those that need it eventually. It's just that we've put the operation in the hands of a enterprise which cares more about those who can pay and/or vote for them than about those those who are actually in need.
It's important to add here that there are many arguments working the other way too. At the recent All-Party Parliamentary Group on Coronavirus in the UK Professor Paul Hunter said it was
And the group were told by Professor Andrew Pollard that
Aren't they actually going to do 70%?
I think the ethics of Australian liberation from lockdown are perhaps new territory for us. They're making the kind of decision a general might have to in a war, but it's normal citizens who are going to die in the coming months, not soldiers.
@Wayfarer. How do you see the situation?
Currently they're saying that we might have 80% of the NSW population vaccinated by about end November. But they're also admitting that it's not a sliver bullet. One scary piece I read said the whole 70-80% target safety model had been predicated on there being no community transmission when it was reached - like, if we had gotten to 80% without the Delta outbreak having happened and had a low or zero base-rate, then we would be effectively free of covid, but that obviously hasn't happened - as I tipped a week ago, we're now into the 1000 a day range..
But that was one opinion piece, and there's hundreds of them every day. I think all we can do is vaccinate like crazy, and that's happening - we're hitting around 150k shots per day. I think after the 70 - 80 rate is reached, there is no choice but to lift general lockdowns. I think, after there's a high vax rate, we're still going to have to observe quite a few measures, like limiting crowd sizes, maintaining distancing and mask-wearing.
Really the Australian population has been very compliant but there are limits. We've had a few mass protests, on the one hand, I think they're obviously irresponsible and will probably make it worse, but I really feel for those people, there's a lot of people doing it tough, people are loosing their businesses, llivelihoods, and relationships. I understand their fury and desperation. Personally I have been extremely fortunate this whole time, for various reasons, none of which I can take much credit for. But I'm really aware of a lot of people who are being hurt. All I can think is, no matter how tough they're doing it, it's probably not as tough as being intubated from COVID-19.
I was taking care of a guy a while back who, while in the kind of mental haze COVID-19 can cause, said "I'm losing everything." He was talking about his business, but that line keeps coming back to me for some reason.
I hope the infection rate starts dropping in Australia.
1. Either you inhale or you exhale.
2. If you exhale, you infect.
3. If you inhale, you're infected.
4. You infect or you're infected. (1, 2, 3 CD)
Yep. Me too.
If you can only soundproof your walls to a certain level, because of technical or financial limitations, beyond that level turning down the music is your only option.
Getting vaccinated has effects that masking, social distancing, and so on, do not. The question is whether you are obligated to attempt to achieve something you can only achieve by getting vaccinated (or exposed to the virus, I suppose).
The discussion we had before was about your support for the goal of reaching herd immunity. Masking and social distancing do not increase the prevalence of the right antibodies in your community. If you support that goal, but think only other people need take steps to reach it, you are free-riding, as I said before. I don't even know what the counter-argument there could be.
Is herd immunity itself a "moral goal" -- meaning, a goal we are morally obligated to attempt to reach, like fighting hunger and suffering and so on? Is it a goal at all, or simply a means to an end, maybe something much more general like "limit unnecessary disease and death"?
Sure, but then we're back to whether there are certain goals for which achieving herd immunity is the only means we have. Maybe even determining that it is the best of the available means is enough.
Honestly, I don't think it's that hard to get there, but I'm not an epidemiologist (neither are you), and this is fundamentally a technical question. Epidemiologists seem to think herd immunity is pretty damn important and were kinda pissed to see measles outbreaks again, as I recall.
Missed this one --
So if we follow Sir Andrew Pollard and ditch herd immunity as a goal, then we'd want to know what he thinks the utility of vaccinations is, and whether there is anything about them he considers a unique benefit. If not, and other measures are just as good for achieving what he thinks is the right goal, then you'd be home free. Maybe.
Quoting link
So eventually everyone will be exposed to the virus -- this is the becoming-endemic outcome I understand is becoming the consensus now among folks that know, yes? -- so vaccination is not to prevent transmission but to reduce severity of illness for the vaccinated individual. Your being vaccinated does not reduce the severity of my illness.
So we're back to questions like burden on the healthcare system and such, but keeping in mind now that the experts here say you will get infected eventually.
(Didn't quote the stuff about not doing boosters and sending vaccine elsewhere instead, but I noticed it.)
10 years from now everyone will either be vaccinated or have infection based immunity.
Every year people will be hospitalized and some will die from it due to continuing resistance to vaccination.
Regarding the "and such" I was thinking about one of the little admonitions against suicide: "It doesn't make the pain go away; it just transfers it to someone else."
I know a guy who died from Covid and, while I don't really much care about the dead (after all, they're dead, right?), it's all the wailing and pain and horrendous grief of those who are left behind that makes the failure to get a shot seem selfish, disrespectful and inconsiderate. His kin are devastated.
Compound that with the fact he took up a bed for a month on his slow, agonizing way out, and there is, or could be even more pain inflicted on yet other people. That's the real issue with the burden on the health care system. The system itself will survive. It's the people in it, or who want to use it, that suffer.
So if those who are vaccinated suffer less, are unlikely to be hospitalized or die, then getting the shot seems like the moral thing to do. I mean, if we are talking morals and all. I'm not inclined to dive into arguments about bats and labs and leaks and some of the nuanced arguments of the experts. That just takes the oxygen out of the room. Covid is like that, I guess.
Absolutely. If you are obese, with heart disease and diabetes, the vaccine may be your only way of reducing your burden on the healthcare system, the 'being healthy' ship has definitely sailed. But for others...
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
They do though because they're not perfect, they just flatten the curve. It's back to a healthcare burden issue again.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Indeed, the key aspect if this (since transmission is an uncertain element, both in terms of vaccine-based reduction, and as a goal).
But this is no out if reach technical matter, the figures are easily accessed and fairly undisputed. If I don't have any of the associated comorbidities, my chances of needing hospital care are tiny.
And even the moral case is uncomplicated because the numbers are so large. We only need look at the levels of burden on healthcare services we already find acceptable - smoking, eating red meat, being overweight, not exercising... the data on these are no less well established than the data on covid and they dwarf the covid risks. So the risk of a healthy person choosing to opt for chancing natural immunity seem already well within the normal range of risks we consider acceptable.
You may know all of this already, but it correlates with what you said about lifestyle issues:
As is the burden on you of just getting the jab or the good you might do Africa by not getting the jab. If I understand you correctly, there is almost no reason for you to get vaccinated, so almost anything on the other side is enough reason not to.
But what if you're wrong about your chances of getting very sick, or what if you're right but it happens anyway? Chances aren't guarantees. I suspect if you had the chance to explain to Prof Pollard how you had been following his work and had yourself not gotten vaccinated, he would say, "Don't be a damned fool. Get the shot."
I don't know if there's a moral issue there -- that was your question so I've gone along -- but I'll say this: the cost to you barely registers; the potential benefit to you is considerable; from a rational point of view, this isn't even a close call.
There were 500,000 cumulative covid-related hospitalisations in the UK as of 23 Aug.
There were about 600,000 obesity related admissions for the same period.
Or, if you like, there were about 100 beds permanently lost from the healthcare system due to cutbacks in services (averaged for the period, of course).
No one gave a shit about the last two when they were news.
[s]We've been through the reasons, no? It's a risk I don't want to take (I prefer risks from external elements to risks from things I did to myself), I don't want to support the pharmaceutical industry, I don't like prophylactic medicine in general.
The point is not whether there's competing benefits, the point is that it's no one's business but mine so long as I make those choices within the thresholds we find acceptable (ie, my choices don't burden the health services more than other choices we already find acceptable).[/s]
Oops. Read it wrong. Ignore the above. I read a 'not' where there was none. Sorry.
Should have said... yes, that's about right.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
That's accommodated in the concept of risk though. If I have a 30% risk, but I'm not sure I'm right about that, then it's either true or not 50/50, so my risk is 0.3*0.5+0.3*0.5, still ends up 30%. You could even bias those odds substantially in favour of me being wrong, my resultant risk of needing hospital treatment would still be dwarfed by that of other lifestyle choices already deemed acceptable.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Well, if I get a chance I'll ask him! We'll have to agree to disagree on that. The experts I've spoken to (albeit two) have both understood the position I take. There's a difference between public policy and individual policy.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
You're calculating the cost/benefit as if the only factors were the chances of getting ill. Generally we're not so single minded.
Interesting, thanks.
Do you find the burdens placed on the healthcare system by obesity, smoking, etc. -- do you find them acceptable? I know that "we" do? What about you?
Why would you engage in a decision making process relying on a standard of risk it is evident you consider lax and ill-informed? That seems kinda crazy, and I don't think you actually did that. I think you made your decision without any consideration of those thresholds at all:
Quoting Isaac
Having now compared your decisions to other decisions you don't approve of, but which "we" the public at large are evidently fine with, you want everyone to be fine with your decision too, and it's a bit galling that so many people evidently aren't.
Near as I can tell, your participation here has never really been about justifying your decision to us or to anyone -- you're completely qualm-free; it's been about demanding justification from those who disapprove.
Am I totally misreading the situation?
I don't, no. But remember the scale is whole orders of magnitude different. The average risk of needing hospitalisation from obesity is over 50 times greater than the risk of a healthy (in terms of known comorbidities), young adult needing hospitalisation from covid. I don't see anything at all odd, or suspicious about my personal appropriate thresholds lying somewhere between the two. In fact, given the enormous range between them, I think it'd be odd if it didn't. I had to have either an extremely lax or an extremely strict stance on the matter for my feeling not to lie somewhere between those two poles.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I haven't, I've used my own standard of risk. I chose obesity as an example deliberately because it was the highest publicly acceptable threshold I could think of. My own standard of risk is much closer to the odd slice of carrot cake if I'm out for afternoon tea.
Notwithstanding my own risk thresholds, this discussion is entirely about the justification others have for making moral judgements, so it's their thresholds that matter.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
That's your prerogative, but it does make discussion a little difficult if you're going to replace what I say with what you think I think. Makes it kinda hard to formulate an aposite response.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes. You said that as if it was wrong. I expect to be judged by consistent standards. Is that something you don't think I've any cause to expect?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
That's right, yes. My overriding interest here (this forum in general, in fact, but certainly this thread), is in how people justify their beliefs, especially when pushed outside their comfort zone (the narrative space in which those beliefs are embedded).
You are grasping at straws. Here's the problem: You are sitting on the camel's back as you grasp at them. The health care system, or the individual, can be the camel. Doesn't matter. Covid, being fat, whatever comorbidity you can think of. It does the camel no good with you sitting on there. Another way to look at it is taking oxygen out of the room.
If you really cared about anyone but yourself, you'd take a seat, or go engage the experts on the merits of all these irrelevant straws.
P.S. Some fat people want to eat shit that makes them fat. They even pay good money for it. Covid, not so much. Nobody wants it. There is no market for it.
I know this is about race and other issues, but it reminds me of you for some reason:
https://chrismaleyblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/devils-advocate-white-guy-3.jpg
Some consensus widely reported down here last week was that the virus would more likely take advantage of the unvaccinated, mutating so as to infect the easier target.
But the thing about mutations is that they are unpredictable.
Yes, I think that's true too. I interpreted Professor Pollard as saying that it would get to the vaccinated eventually, rather than that a variant would target them over and above the unvaccinated. It's more just the inevitability of the virus evolving to outpace vaccine production, such that it could never be eliminated.
As professor Pollard said at the outset "this virus is not measles".
Unfortunately, the last big public narrative around vaccines was the Wakefield/MMR story where the bad woo-merchants ('booo!') tried to take the life-saving vaccine ('yeah!') away from children, so what do the public reach for when presented a new vaccine issue which they don't understand the intricacies of...? The narrative gets framed as some woo-merchants trying to take the vaccine way from children. But unlike the MMR (where the narrative was formed from the events, and so had it about right - Wakefield was a woo-merchant and the MMR is life saving), this time round, the narrative has been picked of the shelf, it doesn't quite fit.
I found the article, which was circulated in other publications. This is what caught my eye:
Yes, that's my understanding of what the experts are saying too, but note
Hence Professor Pollard's notion that it still all comes down to flattening the curve to reduce the burden on health services - even with variants - it's a matter of surviving long enough to get to the point where the virus has settled down. Until then...
...But this raises a new potential problem. Flu shots were never given to the healthy. For this very reason.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Quoting Isaac
But I'm clearly right and you said exactly that:
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Quoting Isaac
That is, without reference to the standard you don't approve of, exactly as I said.
Normally, I don't like to get into this pointless back-and-forth about who said what, but it's oddly on point here.
Quoting Isaac
So what would that be in this case?
To keep it simple, there is the Isaac standard of risk (I) and (your interpretation of) the public standard of risk (P), the one that has no problem with smoking, eating bacon, and going skiing. You have examined your decision not to be vaccinated and concluded it meets the requirements both (I) and (P).
Now what is it you want from your interlocutors here? You want them to apply (P) and find you blameless. Why should they do that? Is (P) the standard of risk of everyone you've interacted with here? Or might they have their own standards, as you have yours?
When someone balks at having words put in their mouth, you call that inconsistent.
Now to this matter of consistency. I submit that a better starting point would be to assume, for the sake of investigation, that if someone's views appear inconsistent, perhaps it is because you don't fully understand their views. (I could say very much more about this, and I am very far from suggesting that everyone's views will turn out, upon examination, to be perfectly consistent. I have my own reasons for thinking this is not so.) This is a point @Hanover used to make forcefully about liberals and conservatives in the United States, and I think he was absolutely right: liberals often see conservatives as almost bone-headedly inconsistent because they just don't understand them.
For instance, you stated some unchallenged and undefended preferences:
Quoting Isaac
Reverse some of those and see if an inclination to get vaccinated, simply as a matter of preference, appears, notwithstanding any of someone's other views about risk.
Quoting Isaac
And I just don't see that this is the course you've followed. What do you actually know about the views of anyone participating in this thread? Could you make up a short list of preferences like yours above for anyone you've argued with here? For comparison, if you had not spelled them out, would it be perfectly clear to everyone here that you held the preferences you listed above?
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, most reports show that more education and vaccine acceptance (less education and vaccine hesitance) correlate.
The delimiters are typically high school and college, and far from all are done with detailed rigor and checks.
(Seems biased to dismiss those reports.)
Granted, you can find some that show differently than that, though they're a minority.
People having changed their minds almost always go from hesitance to acceptance.
Some reports suggest a "hard core" that never change their minds.
(In different areas, incorrigibility seems correlated with radical/extreme views.)
One report found that fear of side effects was the most common reason for hesitance.
My misunderstanding again. I thought you were referring to thresholds of risk in general (those thresholds, as in the one's to to with risk).
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I understand, good call.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I couldn't say for sure, no. But remember the enormous gap in risk between (healthy) covid risk and average society risk. I can't be sure that my interlocutors are at (P), nor even (I), but for a moral judgement about non-vaccination to hold for my case, and be consistent they'd have to hold risk threshold (C - covid risk), which is very strict indeed. I already know you don't (you smoke), Hanover eats meat,... these people are not unknown to me, I've been here a good few years and read several hundred of their posts. I'm making assumptions, I'll grant, but I'm not plucking them from thin air, and no-one's declared I'm wrong about them. So the fact that I could be seems irrelevant.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Cuts both ways though. I disagree with the judgement I perceive on the grounds of inconsistency. Others vehemently oppose my even holding the opinion I do. If it's a lack of charitable interpretation that's bothering you, there's a list of posts ahead of mine need addressing. Your concern here seems a bit post hoc.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I'm afraid I can't make sense of this paragraph.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Seems an odd question. The thread's over 200 pages long. I think I know quite a lot. I didn't start this thread, I never start threads. I've responded to the views of others as they present them. What more could I do?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
No. But I'm not questioning their choices, they're questioning mine.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
No, I doubt it. Would it matter? I don't suppose anyone here is looking to get to know me better. All that matters for my argument is that I have preferences (against which to set any moral duties). Their content doesn't matter.
Just if it wasn't clear, in this context, speaking of harmless/harmful isn't the same as when speaking of Dihydrogen Monoxide.
No they don't. Not in the light of this latest one. With any evidence of a u- or j- shaped relationship, previous studies which lack sufficient granularity to pick up the apparent function simply lack adequate precision. You can't just go back to studies you know lack the granularity to show a variable effect and claim they prove a relationship which assumes it's absent. That's just deliberately selecting data at a granularity you know is going to avoid the relationship you want to deny.
I'm not saying such a relationship even exists, it may yet turn out to be absent. But studies which don't even look for it have no bearing on it's likelihood.
Not clear what you're trying to say here. Is it addressed to me, or simply about my comment?
I didn't.
Did you select them accidentally then?
There isn't much to it.
Quoting Isaac
Nope, I selected whatever demographics-related reports.
To comment on the PhD question... A question none of those reports addressed.
Whataboutism. I thought Murica had an monopoly on that. Anyway, those posts ahead of yours did not arise in a vacuum. They were preceded then again by your own. So many now that I have lost track. Best I can make out is a moving target that keeps getting hit.
Quoting Isaac
And therein lies the rub. If my guys say X and your guys say Y and that is the end of it, then the only recourse is to choose X or Y. The analytic mind would ask what X had to say about what Y said, but apparently that does not matter. So, as a non-expert, I choose X, the vetted, peer-reviewed, expert authorities upon which policy makers rely. You choose Y, flapping in the breeze and being obstinate, petulant, apparently for it's own sake. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull shit. Load that straw! What do the Phd's in astrophysics and geology and paleontology have to say? They're smart.
Largest real-world study of COVID-19 vaccine safety published (Aug 26, 2021)
, the comment was explicitly using broader categories:
Quoting jorndoe
That hasn't made anything any clearer. You might want to to try stringing your media snippets together with actual words relating them to the topic at hand.
Quoting jorndoe
Why?
Has he recently earned his PhD? You might be able to clarify something for us...
FYI, here are a couple reports that may or may not support some of your assertions:
Conscientious vaccination exemptions in kindergarten to eighth-grade children across Texas schools from 2012 to 2018: A regression analysis (Mar 10, 2020)
Mistrust of the medical profession and higher disgust sensitivity predict parental vaccine hesitancy (Sep 2, 2020)
They're a bit early for the current pandemic I suppose.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Quoting Isaac
Sorry, yes, that's one of those sentences that makes sense in your head...
What I meant was this: suppose I did not avoid but preferred risks that were of my own choosing; or suppose I wanted to support the pharmaceutical industry; or suppose I generally approved of prophylactic medicine. Any such preference might even trump other views I have about risk in general, or about the risks of covid and vaccination in particular. But without knowing about those preferences, you might be hard pressed to make sense of my views -- that was the point.
Quoting Isaac
True, but yours are worth addressing.
To get from your stated preferences (about risk and medicine generally) to refusing vaccination is straightforward; the only critique you might be open to there would be if there is some additional premise or premises, which you either already accept or could be brought to accept, which would lead to a different conclusion. This may or may not be the case, but would be the usual sort of discussion.
But the other part of what you've been up to could be summarized, only a little uncharitably, like this:
I don't want to get vaccinated and you can't say boo to me about it because other people smoke and eat red meat.
If I held a position that could be summarized thus, warning bells would be going off that I had made some kind of mistake somewhere. This part is not a bad argument; it's just no argument at all, but somehow you came to believe it is. (I'm very interested in how that might happen.)
I'm sure on your side it all seems to hang together in mutual support, perfectly neat and consistent. But from my side, there's a crazy patchwork of argument and obiter dicta with the actual structure obscured by a tangle of threads connecting everything to everything else.
Ahh, that makes sense now. Yes I agree. But here, I'm interested primarily in why people believe my actions are bad. Those reasons you gave (reversed), would explain why someone might consider their own actions justified, but I can't really tie them to a belief that my actions are wrong. Kind of like my preference for whiskey would explain why I'm drinking one right now, your preference for brandy would explain why you're not (but rather are having a brandy), but your preference for brandy wouldn't explain why you think my drinking a whiskey is wrong.
Having brought them up, however, I would be interested in what your preferences are, if you've a mind to say. What factors would you consider [i]apart from health risk/benefit[/]?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Could you explain why?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
So the main thread is the threshold of acceptable risk to your community's health services. I don't suppose anyone has something like a number in mind, but a rough idea of what is and is not acceptable. I expect a degree of consistency, and I don't think that's all that odd. We'd find it odd if someone who smoked like a chimney started complaining about the burden on the health service caused by meat-eaters. You'd find that odd no? But that's exactly what's happening here. People who take a reasonably large risk of burdening their health services are complaining about those taking a smaller risk. I'm trying to find out why.
"Get vaccinated."
Indeed. But the world's a complicated place, so we take shortcuts.
Your differing taste might leave another unable to understand your action. "Ugh. How can you drink that stuff!" Unable to understand means unable to approve.[hide="*"] (Not necessarily of course, but it's common. Trust, for instance, can overcome the usual need: "I don't know what you see in him, but you've always been a good judge of people.")[/hide] This isn't just a matter of taste though; the selection here of "not drinking whiskey" as the default behavior -- this is the shortcut, the partitioning of the alternatives by naming a "favored term" -- only means I'll need an explanation to understand your choice.
It's clear enough that for many of the people you've interacted with here, getting vaccinated is seen as the default. Your choice is hard to understand; I expect your explanations have persuaded some you've made a reasonable decision, just not all. For me, your explanations have gotten me roughly to the middle -- still not sure you've made the right choice, but not sure you've made the wrong one either.
Quoting Isaac
Ah. Not sure, honestly. I don't have a lot of opinions one way or another about medicine and the use of pharmaceuticals. I know the industry is a horror show, as most multi-billion-dollar industries are, but I've been pleased to have ibuprofen in my life, and I know there are cases where drugs have saved people and cases when they're an obscene money-grab.
I'm rather strongly pro-science, in a vague way, so if men and women in lab coats hold press conferences and tell me they think I ought to do something, I'll need reasons not to, or at least excuses, maybe rationalizations will do. This is, sadly, a tribal matter here in the United States now, especially where I live, in the Deep South, and it is perhaps hard to understand if you don't live here. This may be why it seemed natural to me to compare getting vaccinated to voting -- simultaneously civic-minded and tribe-supporting -- a comparison that may not have the same resonance with you.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Quoting Isaac
Well, it's a non sequitur, for starters, so we'd have to add some premises to get it looking like an inference. I don't like the look of what we'd have to add, though: that's a lot of individuals with their own reasons and given their own circumstances. If I ignore all that, my conclusions are probably worthless; not ignoring it introduces lots and lots of variables. Doesn't strike me as a good opportunity for generalizing.
And then there's what we'd be adding if we proceed: the goal is to compare what someone says about one thing with what they say about another. Even if I'm careful, and do the work, do I get anything better than plain "whataboutism"?
It's hard to put my finger on why -- evidence, as a matter of fact, that this impression is mistaken -- but it just doesn't feel like reasoning to me at all. It feels more "associative" than inferential.
You've provided a gloss, so let's look at that.
Quoting Isaac
Right off the bat, I'm uncomfortable. You've made a choice about how to classify people's views; it's not a bad choice, but there's no reason to think it's their choice. That doesn't always matter, but explicitly here we're supposed to be interested in why people say one thing and another, and you've decided for them why they're saying what they do.
Quoting Isaac
No, not if by "odd" you meant "surprising". (I know by "odd" you mean "irrational", but I don't want to touch that.) Add the right premise or premises and their views might be perfectly consistent. (No guarantees, of course; sometimes people do reason poorly.) There are people in the United States who won't get vaccinated precisely because the federal government and the pointy-headed scientists want them to; the problem here is not their inconsistency, and that's what we're supposed to be interested in.
Quoting Isaac
Obviously because they have other beliefs informing their views. Is that so strange? If you didn't have preferences against getting vaccinated, this might have been a matter of indifference to you. You might have flipped a coin.
I don't have a solution for you. You can evaluate another's views using their criteria, and they'll pretty often pass that test; you only catch the occasional faulty inference that way. Or you can evaluate another's views using your criteria, but what's the point in saying that if someone thought like you they'd agree with you? There doesn't seem to be much percentage in doing either. If the exercise is to have any point at all, it has to start by settling on shared criteria, our criteria. Insofar as people haven't done that with you, they've wasted their time and yours. Insofar as you haven't done that with them, you've wasted your time and theirs. What else is there to say?
A Jan-Jun 2021 probe somewhere out there ...
... via KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: In Their Own Words, Six Months Later (Jul 13, 2021)
Not sure I get this. Does 'unable to understand' really mean 'unable to approve'? I assume the bit I'm not getting is the explanation, but it seems to lack something. I mean, I can not understand someone's choice and yet still approve. I don't understand how people like brandy... You took an opportunity to present an example, but gave one for the exception (I don't know what you see in him...). What I could have done with was an example of the rule (I can't approve because I don't understand why you prefer...).
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Really interesting you should say that. It crops up a lot in my field. Men and women in lab coats tell you what the odds ratios are - "you're 1.4 times as likely on average to get cancer if you spend more than eight hours sitting down..." type of thing - they can't tell you what you ought to do. Maybe you're happy with that risk, maybe you love sitting down and don't care about cancer... The scientists can only tell us what the facts are, not what we ought to do about them.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I get that, but this is a discussion forum - is it not within reason to say "...and you can't say ..." with the expectation that someone might reply "I can to, because...". In other fields we don't couch our opening gambits in overly conciliatory terms, I've only just read you saying that indirect realism about patterns is 'horseshit', a strong opener, but I expect you expect people to come back at you nonetheless. I'm quite happy to have my assertion ripped to pieces if it's a non-sequitur, but I do expect that ripping to have some substance.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Well no, because whataboutism aims to shift the attention. I'm not shifting any attention, I'm enquiring about inconsistency. It's not a matter of saying "what about the obese" (don't look at me), it's saying "if you think this about me, why not the obese?" it's a question, not an avoidance strategy. If it's avoidance I was after, my consistent posting would be somewhat undermining that aim, no? I could have not mentioned it, no-one would have judged, no-one need know. I can't see this caricature having any merit.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Interesting. I can't say as I'd heard many other options. The talk is all about the risk not vaccinating produces. I can see perhaps people may view vaccine hesitancy in terms of risk and smoking not, but then I'd want to know why - what justifies the categorisation for them.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes. It's those I'm after.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Not strange no - absent. I want to know what they might be.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes. I thought risk of burdening the healthcare services might be such a shared criteria, it seems popular and there's not been so much as a hint of anything else forwarded as a consideration. But if not that (or not only that), then what else? What could these additional factors be, and why have they remained hidden these last 200 pages behind a wall of talk about harms.
You have to admit that if, after 200 pages of talking primarily about the harms to society of non-vaccination, some other factor rears it's head only now, it'd be odd.
I think so. What would you be approving of? But again, someone choosing the non-favored option only means you require some explanation -- or don't because you have other reasons not to.
A little expansion on the partition idea, which I find useful pretty often: if you have a set of options {a, b, c, d}, you can take that as-is and choose between them, or you can designate a default [hide="*"] (not sure where I picked up this usage of "favored" but either it's out there somewhere or I'm misremembering) [/hide] and partition the options into two sets. If the default is a, then you get {a, not-a, not-a, not-a}; if it's not-b, and substituting for clarity, you get {ok, not ok, ok, ok}.
Your whisky and brandy example might be just be a matter of taste rather than "How could anyone possibly like brandy? Anyone who says they do is a poseur."
Quoting Isaac
Fair point. But in some cases the scientist is wearing a public health hat with the lab coat, so I grandfather them in.
Quoting Isaac
Heh. I'm trying to be okay with indirect realism, but there's an armchair version of it that still rubs me the wrong way.
Quoting Isaac
Also a fair point. It still seems like a long way around to me: if your critique of my position is solid, then it is, even if you're wrong about lots of other stuff. If the meat-eater's response is just "I really like steak and I've never understood why people smoke" then it's his premises and his weighting of them you'll have to take issue with, because he's perfectly consistent.
Quoting Isaac
Maybe there isn't a single premise everyone shares that carries more weight than all their other preferences put together. Maybe what we're looking at here is more of a "family resemblance" situation, lots of overlap and so on, but not one single most important thread.
You're risking long term loss of lung function if you don't get vaccinated.
Shaking my head in defeat. :fear:
I'm getting tired my friend. :worry:
Their having chosen with integrity?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
But when we're talking about preferences (not facts), that starts to sound worryingly like a presumption of conformity. As if you owe someone an explanation just to be different. It's non-favoured for men to wear make-up, it doesn't require an explanation when they do.
I think I understand what you're saying about defaults, but I don't think it applies well here. I think a position where the default is to accept the prophylactic product of a "horror show" and an explanation is required to not, is a very dangerous precedent to set (or allow to continue). If we can't even say that the default position is to not inject ourselves with commercial products, then something's seriously wrong.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Could do, but public health officials tell what course of action would, for an average person, best balance the various objectives of their bosses (usually the government). It's still your decision as to what to do with those facts.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Likewise with me and public health institutions I'm afraid.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I've been too long in research. I never just ask.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
That seems likely, yes. I don't believe it's impossible to learn though still, but people apparently aren't going to just say what it is (even after 200 pages of opportunity, it seems), and that makes it all the more interesting a question.
You take risks with your long-term health every day, do you mitigate them all?
If a friendly voice says, "No really, go ahead and do it.", I usually do.
Did Nick get the virus earlier? Has he actually tested positive in the last year?
Yes, but you were imploring me, not you. That you're swayed by the friendliness of the voice (seems a bit easily led to me, but, hey ho), why ought I be? Personally, I'm persuaded by the best available scientific data on the relative risk and my personal level of acceptable risk.
The evidence for these possible sequelae is largely derived from acute manifestations of covid-19, along with extrapolations from the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and data on acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). (https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3001)
This prospective cohort study has shown that 52% of [patients hospitalized with SARS infection] survivors had persistent impairment in DLco (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1440-1843.2010.01720.x - the study referred to by the BMJ article)
Since my risk of Cov-19 hospitalisation is 1 in 2778 (https://www.qcovid.org/) my risk, of even the relatively mild lung damage (impairment in DLco) is about 1 in 5000 lifetime risk.
Similar to riding a motorbike for a couple of days, a skiing holiday, commuting to work, eating bacon, living in a city centre...
The data you're using isn't for the delta variant. This is the problem with preferring data over the friendly voice.
It is in terms of risk assessment. Since there is no evidence for the delta variant (the study is still recruiting https://www.ukri.org/news/examining-long-term-impacts-of-debilitating-lung-damage-from-covid/) there's a 50% chance it'll be worse and a 50% it'll be better, making the risk 0.5*0.0002 + 0.5*0.0002. Or you could even write a function for the Gaussian distribution of greater and lesser harms. Either way it's the same risk - at the moment.
Ok. You'll most likely be infected with the delta variant between now and October. As you say, most likely you'll be fine.
Indeed. Might even be better off than you.
...but I'm sure you'll be fine too.
Could be. But local data says that unvaccinated vented patients have a 20% mortality rate. Vaccinated and vented have 0.02% mortality.
I've been focusing on all the long-haul I see developing. It's rough
Definitely. I think the general case that vaccines reduce disease severity is still very strong, even in spite of the few studies showing that natural immunity might be better against new variants. I wouldn't (if I didn't have other preferences in play) choose non-vaccination over vaccination on the odds alone. I think vaccination is the better bet at the moment.
But since when have we made all our decisions on the basis of which course of action leads to the least risk of adverse health outcomes, and nothing else?
Quoting frank
I bet. Keep up the good work!
True. Everybody has their own priorities. :up:
Many years ago I was peripherally involved in assessing the impact of some risk assessment. I won't say what it was in because it was quite specific, but they failed to include any relative risk information and used worlds like 'common' and 'danger' instead. My response was (in fairly strong language in fact) that they were effectively telling everyone they had a bomb in their basement which might go off any minute and they were asking me "how do you think people will react?" - how the hell do you think people are going to react?
I lost the contract...
Yes. Some people are really angry.
No data on those who were fully vaccinated. Not much use.
What am I missing?
And whether those actions lead to the least risk is up for debate.
A while back my government had a cost-benefit analysis done weighing the benefits of the Covid-19 measures versus the indirect consequences.
The conclusion was that the Covid-19 measures were estimated to produce around 100,000 healthy life years, and cost over FIVE TIMES that number; around 520,000 healthy life years.
This analysis was of course ignored and the Covid-19 measures were taken anyway.
This was discussed in the House of Representatives long after the fact, where the MP (predictably) denied ever having seen the analysis. (In a time of supposed crisis, a cost-benefit analysis of measures that infringed upon citizen's fundamental rights was not read by the MP?)
SO, if I've understood this correctly, if you catch it and survive, you will have less chance of catching it again than those who are vaccinated have if getting it at all?
I'd go with the vaccination.
...
Quoting Tzeentch
Doesn't sound of much use here then? Is it just your word against his, or do you have some sources?
Interesting bit of ethics, related to cost benefit though...
The WHO usually use QALYs (quality adjusted life years) to assess how cost effective health interventions are (where 'cost' here is not just economic). They decided, for covid, to abandon QALYs, because the disease affected mostly the elderly and they felt it would be unethical. But QALYs were implemented entirely to prevent a bias in favour of the elderly (they suffer from more disease, generally). In the original documentation it was expressed as a 'right to reach and enjoy old age'.
Were they right to abandon QALYs? There's a healthy debate about that.
To emphasize, the MP did not deny the existence of the cost-benefit analysis that was made - he just claimed to never have seen it.
The document can be found here, when the link to "2 MKBA versie 1 en 2.pdf" is followed, but it is not in English.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17nAOd5mXetuaNqKe9MXLLEQxjjYE1z-s
Yes, I think that's it. But it's only true of the Delta variant, though probably extends to other new variants. Importanly, it also doesn't include boosters or modifications to the vaccine which may make it more effective against Delta. And it's in preprint, so may be subject to methodological errors the authors didn't spot.
Don't forget though, that the vaccinated are highly likely to have caught it already too, prior to vaccination. This study eliminates those for accurate comparison, but when considering your own risk profile, you'd need to take that into account.
Not, by any means, a coup de grâce... but when all we've got is speculation, it provides some support if one were that way inclined anyway (as I am), but if not, I don't think it's significant enough to sway anyone yet.
Presumably, it's much harder to gain natural immunity if vaccinated (but experiencing a breakthrough infection), because there will already be binding antibodies in your bloodstream, so less presentation of antigen epitopes for the immune system to work on?
Ah I see. 'MP'? What country are we talking about?
Quoting Tzeentch
That's a Google drive. Do you have any more official source? A journal or institution perhaps?
To give further context, the link shows an official communication of the government and primarily summarizes an analysis that was done by a department of the Ministry of Finance.
I've tried to find links that leads to one of the studies this analysis was based on, but was greeted by a paywall: https://esb.nu/incoming/20061414/een-eerste-kwantitatieve-analyse-van-de-nederlandse-coronamaatregelen
This matter was discussed in the House of Representatives, so there is no question as to whether this analysis was made.
Thanks, that certainly lends a bit more weight to it.
I was interested in the detail because cost-benefit analyses generally contain a ton of really interesting assumptions. The overwhelming majority I've read find measures to contain the virus to be cost effective when judged against a Value of Statistical Life, but obviously they all rely on these assumptions so you could quite easily get whatever result you want out of one, within reason.
Some real classic psychological tricks on that one. If a behavioural psychologist wasn't involved in writing that I'll eat my hat.
No and no.
Does he have diabetes?
Sure, if you know them and have some idea how they make decisions, then that would fall under "-- or don't because you have other reasons not to [require an explanation]." Maybe "require" is too strong a word; maybe plain old "prefer" is better, but keep in mind that "other reasons not to" covers a lot of ground. Most decisions most other people make are a matter of indifference to us.
Quoting Isaac
Ah, now this is nothing like what I was talking about, so I see the problem. I haven't been anywhere near describing behavior in the aggregate, just talking about individuals as individuals. The partitioning of options is purely a description of how an individual might view a field of alternatives -- and, again, nobody views every such set as partitioned, just some, for whatever reason. So I'm not at all talking about whether some behaviors where we have options (like wearing makeup, given that we're men) are "favored" by society at large or something. But your description is fine for individuals holding such a view -- and we probably could aggregate and say something like, Americans over the age of 60 presume men don't wear makeup unless they're on stage, and find deviation odd.
Because that part is right, absolutely. It's all about marking what's to count as deviation, if anything. But again I'm only talking about what an individual would consider deviant, because this thread is all about individual decisions. (Okay and because methodological individualism has some appeal for me.)
[hide="Another example"]Here's an example at the aggregate level, which is so simplistic it's almost certainly false, but it's illustrative. It has been argued that there are two general patterns of morality found in human history: in one, certain behaviors (kin-killing and so on) are forbidden, and everything else is up to you; in the other, a single way of living is put forth as the right way to live, and any deviation from that is forbidden. You can see how these two approaches amount to different styles of partitioning: one is a handful, or a whole bunch of "not ok"s, leaving everything else untouched; the other is the selection of a single option and everything else gets marked "not ok".[/hide]
Also, maybe I should note that I'm not defending these partitioning schemes -- I introduced them as a shortcut people take to deal with the complexity of the world. It saves you from having to work up a judgment from scratch for every novel situation. It's a very System 1 approach, so what matters here is its general utility and cost-effectiveness. You will miss a lot of nuance, but you avoid a lot of complexity; and when you have reason to think you've made a mistake, you just bump the question up to System 2. To put it in the common lingo, such partitioning schemes clearly fall under the heading of "biases and heuristics".
Quoting Isaac
I'm not sure people always can articulate the reasons for their decisions. Besides, the friendly neuroscientists down the hall will remind us that whatever they say is an after-the-fact story their brain made up when pressed, a rationalization.
Aortic Disection ascending and descending 2020
Not yet to Diabetes but is not actively avoiding it.
But Frank, the PTS from ICU 23 days on vehnilator including a tracheostomy.
How could you not want to do everything possible to avoid it
We call it a triple-A. Was it because of high blood pressure? Is he a cocaine user?
The delta variant is blowing through America. They're saying that in October we'll see it peaking in terms of hospitalizations.
Mostly likely he'll be fine. Common symptoms are headache, annoying cough, nausea and vomiting. It lasts a couple of weeks.
Covid19 can cause all sorts of problems like blood clots and so forth. So have that in the back of your mind. If you walk into the bathroom and he's on the floor, just call 911 and follow their directions. He might have just had a stroke or something. Don't panic. Just get help.
If he starts panting when he walks around the house. It might be causing pneumonia. He would want to go to bed. You can get a little O2 detector from Amazon or Walgreens.
It looks like this.
If his pulse ox reading goes to the 70s, take him in to the hospital, but be aware that most likely he will recover.
Worse case scenario, he could die, but the fact that he's not diabetic is in his favor.
Feeling for you. Sending a little zen your way.
Don't panic, just get help.
Thank you for telling me to not panic because after the last time I found him on the floor I didn't know how to react to the "next" time.
I'm not handling this well at all.
Normally, yes. One's method of reducing the burden on one's healthcare services seems a matter for public admonition though.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Ah, I misunderstood, sorry.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes. That makes sense. I suppose, in that language, I'm trying to get the decision to avoid the vaccine bumped up to people's system 2 to see what kind of justification they come up with. If it's all system 1 responses I'm not going to get anything interesting. I already know what the system 1 responses will be.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Maybe true. I might well be wasting my time.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Now, who would go around saying a thing like that, eh...?
You're right of course, but it's those stories I'm after. They've been my bread and butter for many years. They're not random, it's the exogenous factors which select for them that interest me.
It's a minority that gets sick enough that they have long term effects. Cross those bridges when you get to them. Focus on now. Fix food that has a lot of vitamin D. There was a study that showed a correlation between D deficiency and worse covid.
Wipe the door handles down. Trying to think of things to keep busy...
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
i know I would feel that way too. Take it as it comes.
That's generally what we do around here, right.
This is just a big mess for philosophy in general: on the one hand we want to talk as if everyone is in System 2 mode, but we're regularly dependent on data from people's System-1-driven behavior. (What philosophers are accustomed to call our "intuitions" -- without those there's no Gettier problem, not much to talk about in ethics, linguistic evidence is worthless, etc.) That's fine-ish, but it makes collecting the System 1 data awfully confusing, or, rather, it makes it hard for the one providing the data to know if you want the gut reaction or the rationalization, and obviously most people prefer to present their rationalizations to the world. (New posters here who present only their gut instincts about everything and no rationalizations are shunned and eventually banned.)
Yes, that's exactly it. And the intricacies that go along with it.
Not all gut instincts can be said out loud, some social situations demand only the rationalisations, in others rationalisation sounds cold and overly pedantic. Philosophy is, afterall, a social activity. It has it's rules too. Like how a system 1 quip can trump a system 2 castle-in-the-air (see "trees don't really exist" - "well, duh, there's one outside my window"), but played wrong the same move comes off sounding naïve and unsubtle. I get it when reading some of the more complicated philosophy, part of me's carefully putting piece to piece constructing the jigsaw until, occasionally, system 1 says "but this is all bullshit, isn't it?"
Here I think it's very much about the social narratives though. I'm guessing, but my gut instinct is that people don't have much of a gut instinct about vaccines as individuals, rather there are a number of social narratives available; the diligent follower of Science™, the see-through-it-all conspiracist, the 'ass-kicking' honor-and-duty soldier, the 'actually-I-think-you'll-find' academic...
Despite titling them facetiously, I'm not suggesting any are somehow insincere (I'm one of them), it's what we do, we use narratives to make sense of the otherwise borderline chaos and just haven't the bandwidth to be constructing individually tailored versions, so we pick them off the shelf, tweak them a bit maybe and then elbow everything into one. I like to see how other people do it, but unless people are confronted with a conflicting narrative they don't do the work, so all you get is the unadulterated story, the off-the-shelf version. Not so interesting.
The one thing I'd add is that since we know system 2 is the training ground for system 1 -- note -- there's hope that we can attend to our system 1 driven "instinctual" responses, and then reconstruct the system 2 analyses that went into them.
But it doesn't work like that. What your analysis of your system 1 instincts produces is a new product; there's no simple way recover the original process. What's more, system 1 does its own thing with your earlier system 2 efforts: it's purpose is to produce cheap, readily accessible summaries of the results of all that system 2 work. It is by design unfaithful to them. It's a lossy format.
So reconstruction isn't really in the offing, and all we can do is let system 2 do its job as it's currently constituted and in the current circumstances. (All the overcoming-bias types are happy if they can just get people to recognize when they've left unexamined a response it behooves them to examine.)
Note: At least that's my understanding. When first driving a car you have to think about every little thing and make lots of conscious decisions, but eventually it becomes second nature and you do it all without thinking
Yes, I have a lot of respect for Kahneman's work, but it's not always easy to translate my own models through his. I think in terms of predictive models, of increasingly higher orders of generality which then feed back to models of lower order of generality, so for me there's two hierarchy's going on - the prior/update (assume your priors until they are overwhelmed by evidence the contrary, then update them) but also the general/specific relationship (create or update priors based on which would best support the priors of the model they form one of the data points for).
So with your car driving example, there'd be assumptions (priors) about where you should put your feet or hands next which you wouldn't question unless you were getting some really weird feedback (sort of like system 1 taking over), but your priors about where to put your hands and feet are not just modulated by previous system 2 work at the same level (learning to drive), they're modulated by higher order models - what sort of thing a car is, what it's purpose is etc. and the priors for those are modulated by even higher order models - what sort of thing is a car likely to be given what sort of thing the world is?
I've skipped a lot of steps in between for brevity, but you get the picture (hopefully). So social narratives form these higher order models which means that although they themselves cannot simply be swapped out (the have the prior vs update bias), if they are swapped out, they do put a backwards acting pressure on the priors for lower order models.
If that makes any sense at all?
Yet somehow do get it sufficiently to warrant an insult.
Quoting tim wood
Well then we can resolve our issue right away. We're facing a new form of virus which we're frantically working out the effects of in terms of both short and long-term immunology and physiological impact, it's affecting some of the most advanced and complex socio-economic units the world has ever seen at an unprecedented level of global interconnectedness. The medication is of a never before used technology, created by an integrated network of funding, private investment and government incentive. We don't know where this thing came from, it's mutating faster then we can update our medicines for it and in unpredictable directions. The models used to work out the effects of various strategies had to be run across several universities becasue no one university had sufficient computing power to include all the variables...
...and you think it's simple.
The world is not a Disney film, it's not divided in heroes and villains (conveniently colour-coded) there's no magic weapon to kill the evil dragon and people rarely live happily ever after. Come back to me when you've come to terms with that and we can have a grown-up conversation about some of the complexities.
What is the Mu variant of COVID-19 the WHO is now monitoring?
But gained my respect :sparkle:
That's very kind of you to say.
Absolutely. Introducing hierarchy is very sound idea.
I have lots of thoughts which I am, through sheer force of will and adroit use of the "select all" and "delete" commands, not just vomiting all over your screen.
Quoting Isaac
Is this to say that as you move up a level in the hierarchy, you have a model that generates predictions about what models directly below it will be successful? Is there a rock-bottom where the models generate predictions about experience? (Trying to capture with "experience" just that we're talking about data that is not composed of models succeeding or failing, whatever it is composed of.) And then everything above is models of models?
Ha! I appreciate the editing, I have to do the same sometimes.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
More about what data they'll forward. The aim is always to save energy, and surprise takes energy, analysis takes energy, filtering out noise takes energy, so there's an incentive to pre-filter the noisy, potentially surprising data from models lower down (this is actually observable in neural activity, we're definitely stepping on the threshold of science proper here, even if we're not quite going in!). So the higher models are sending back a message like "I'm expecting a table, don't bother sending me any data that doesn't conform to the idea of a table".
Or, much more controversially, "I'm expecting this person I'm talking to to say things like my model of a hero/villain (delete as appropriate), don't bother sending me any interpretations of sentences that don't conform to that idea"
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, (if i understand you correctly), sensation and interoception. The edge of our Markov Blanket. but we couldn't really call them experiences, it's more like 'edge', 'light', 'pressure', 'heart rate'... dozens of hierarchical levels later...'table', 'cup'....'my desk', working', 'the philosophy forum'... etc. But it's important to remember that this is an interactive process. at each stage there's a reaching out into the environment, we actively try to make it conform to our models of it too (again, it's just less energy that way). we're like terrible scientists, p-hacking our experiments all the time and concluding "oh yes, the data proves my model".
All of this regarding perception is fairly well established, the leading model at the moment. My work is (was) much more speculative relating it to much higher hierarchical levels of social narratives and how they filter and suppress signals from core beliefs, language interpretation, ethical judgement etc.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, that's right. An issue which usually stops people in their tracks, as if there was some sort of hideous circularity in that, but yes - models of models of models...
I still have the case at hand in mind and will be coming back to it.
(Most threads end up being about one of a few evergreen topics, no matter how they start.)
Good. I'm happy talking about psychology in general though (too happy perhaps). Off to the pub now though, so it'll be tomorrow.
Hard to misunderstand
Quoting Isaac
Which bit of that confuses you?
So still thinking in Disney terms then? Either Thor's magic hammer or the poisoned apple?
What follows is a little disjointed because I kept pruning away the joints:
It sounds like filtering is not something done by a subsystem that has that purpose, some bit of business we could properly call a "filter"; rather it's a way of describing how a model at one level constrains the models below it.
One typical feature of hierarchy is that there's no transparency across levels. That is, middle managers have some authority over their domain, and within broad guidelines are only told what to get done, not how to get it done. Upper management needn't even know much about the various roles and responsibilities of employees several layers below them. "I just need to know quickly if that's a knife and I don't want to hear any minutiae about visual processing."
When there is failure, i.e., surprise, it would, by definition, be contained at the lowest level it can be (unless there's some special provision made).
It's a wonder that we can communicate at all because a system like this is designed not to acknowledge novelty unless it absolutely has to, despite the obvious facts that everyone we speak with is unique and nearly every sentence we hear has never been spoken before. (This needs a lot more thought.)
Now some remarks about the sorts of discussions had here:
Pigeonholing is common, and it's just surprise containment. You attribute to another a view you are already familiar with instead of grappling with novelty.
It often seems to me that no one here really believes in disagreement, despite the above: it is incredibly common to see people in effect take the position that if another disagrees with me it must be because they don't really understand my position. (So I'll explain it again.) This is actually pretty uncomfortable, and seems like the sort of irritant the system is designed to minimize; when we speak candidly, we speak assuming that we will be understood, so to remain in a position of continuing to believe we are not understood is odd. But it can make sense from the production side: we don't need to say anything new, and can just repeat ourselves.
Both issues call attention to the likelihood that at least some of such a system is built around satisficing rather than optimizing. Even if the models throughout the hierarchy are mostly Bayesian, so that in effect you're continually running parallel best-first searches, there have to be some operational shortcuts to safeguard efficiency: a single model running too long before reporting back a result has to count as a failure; if you run multiple models at once, the first one back with a result probably wins. (Pinker talks in Words and Rules about some evidence for such races.) Satisficing is by definition good enough, and by design cheaper than holding out for an optimal result, but it's still a shortcut.
Satisficing has obvious negative consequences in discussions such as ours: people make the first criticism that comes to mind, without reflecting that a problem that obvious would likely have been noticed by the speaker as well (see @Nagase's exasperated dispelling of the myth that Logical Positivism was founded upon an obvious logical mistake); people resort to, shall we say, "extra-logical" strategies (deflection, ad hominem, obfuscation, and the rest) -- that might seem not to meet a presumed constraint of reasoned response, but if reasoned response is hard to come up with, some other kind of response will have to do; loss of perspective is common, opponents focusing on small issues while the main point of contention recedes into the background.
*
Bah. I had expected to get back to the coronavirus debate in this one, but this already way too much. I don't feel like I've advanced the discussion, but at least you can tell me if I'm in the neighborhood of your thinking.
Yes, that's rightQuoting Srap Tasmaner
Even further off-topic, but there's a whole slew of theories around language which tie in to this, all to do with the idea that we don't speak for communication at all (I'm exaggerating for rhetorical effect, of course - undermined by these parentheses telling you that, nevermind). The idea is that we communicate in whole sentences, the meanings of which are very broad and not very diverse (lots of sentences mean the same thing), but the detail of which is more like a form of art, personalisation to help with individual identity, group membership tokens etc. So it may not be quite so surprising afterall. We don't really have that much to say to each other in terms of meaning, but we do have a lot of feather-preening to do.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
True, but with the caveat that we're doing it to ourselves too. It's not that we're all unique snowflakes really and outsiders keep putting us in boxes. We put ourselves in boxes too, we interpret things other people say as if they were caricatures, but we also take what they say into our belief systems as if we were caricatures too. When the villain speaks it's not only that everyone interprets what he says as though he were the villain, it's that they interpret everything he says as though they were the hero/plucky sidekick/victim...
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
See the paragraph above. It may not be that odd at all...in some interpretations of communication acts.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes. One surprising outcome of neuroscience getting involved in all this was the odd effect simple proximity (in terms of location in the brain) had on which models got their messages accepted most often. Like you say, the ones which got there first.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Well, to an extent, yes, but a shortcut to what? Are you assuming we want the truth? There doesn't seem to be much need for it. Least surprise in the long run perhaps... All told, our main aim seem to be much more short-term - personal identity, immediate threats, group dynamics... all well above learning the truth about the world as goals. Even for scientists themselves, truth is merely instrumental, having it can be used to further those goals within the narrative they're playing out. Like having the magic spear with which the hero slays the dragon.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
So true. I read @Nagase's piece and enjoyed it, though the responses show already the erosion of such stellar arguments in the acid of a social narrative in which 'everybody knows' the logical positivists undermined their own project - they're famous for it. We just get too disoriented when they're removed from the story like that. You can't just kill off the main character in act 3. Because the accusation in the first place was never a reasoned assessment of the facts, it was the casting of a role in a play. As Mark Twain (?) said you can't use reason to disabuse someone of a position that wasn't derived using reason in the first place - or something like that.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, on the whole, very much so. I think the only difference perhaps is that I don't see discussions like this (the coronavirus one, not ours now) as a means to convince people of, nor collaboratively derive any kind of position, so what you might see as flaws, I see as features.
Heh. In the context of this paragraph and your last messages to @tim wood, this is an amusing substitution: in Disney's Sleeping Beauty, the weapon with which Prince Phillip slays Maleficent (in dragon form) is the Sword of -- wait for iiiiit -- Truth.
Quoting Isaac
Actually, yes, that was what I was thinking. Quite short-term gains in efficiency, or gains within a department, could be overall inefficient, or in the long-term inefficient. It's a danger hierarchies are prone to by nature. Examples from the business world are endless.
As for truth, sigh. I get the argument, both because I read Nietzsche a million years ago and because my ride home from work the other night was spoiled by an interview on the radio with Donald Hoffman.
My working assumption goes something like this, speaking very loosely: evolution selects for an organism to have certain capacities that meet a need, but that doesn't mean those capacities are limited to meeting that need. We didn't evolve to be able to play baseball, but we do. I even have a pet theory that language is an accident, that we got an upgrade on our signaling ability that is far greater than any species could ever need. Satisficing can also give you something better than you asked for.
And so it could be with our ability to apprehend the truth: may not be what we were "designed" to do, but that doesn't mean we can't. It does mean it's worthwhile understanding what limitations may be built into our capacities -- there's even a long-running debate about whether throwing overhand, as in baseball, is unnatural and inherently injury-producing! -- and god knows it means being aware of what your subsystems will do if left to their own devices. ("System 1 is a machine for jumping to conclusions," as Kahnemann says.) We don't know that we can apprehend the truth, but we also don't know that we can't, and we can make the attempt. (I want to say, "can make the attempt and see", but -- trouble. We evidently can play baseball, so that's something.
With all that in mind, I do not believe that debates such as we have here are pointless. I suppose I'm just largely in the overcoming-bias camp: we know a certain amount about the kinds of mistakes people are inclined to make without noticing, ourselves included, and we can improve our performance by being on the lookout for those mistakes. Logic was a big damn step, but there are others.
Shall we talk about pandemic ethics, now? I believe I understand your overall approach quite a bit better than I did a few days ago, so I'm curious to see if I can actually apply any of this to the questions at hand.
Ha! Indeed. Laying on the clichés quite thick in that one.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Are they though? I don't mean the short-termism in general (that's lamentably common!), but Truth? Did that notion help them in the long-term? Or was it just a more efficient model? If a model produced better long-term gains but was no more 'true' (or even perhaps less true) would we have any reason left to prefer truth? Aesthetics, perhaps? Or do you think, perhaps, it's impossible for a model to produce good long-term gains without being closer to the truth?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Definitely with you so far.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
You hinted at the problem, and we've talked about it before, I think, but the facts we have simply over-determine most theories that intelligent people can come up with. The best we can hope for is to rule out the loonies. Something like this coronavirus situation, despite the way my numerous detractors paint it, there's just no way of pinning down any truth of the matter. Most (sensible) theories can be supported by the range of facts available, so all discussion can show us (if we assume it's anything more than storytelling - of which I've yet to be fully convinced) is the manner in which people muster their particular facts to support their particular theory...unless I'm one of the loonies that need ruling out...!??
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yeah, let's go for it.
Sorry, I must not have been clear enough: I was only talking about efficiency there. (I was deliberately passing over the other stuff you talk about there, the asymptote of truth and all that.)
Quoting Isaac
"underdetermine" I believe you'll find.
Yes, so let's grant the Quine-Duhem thing. [hide="*"](In some frameworks it's a provable theorem.)[/hide] There are still grounds for distinguishing different kinds of theories, or distinguishing one framework from another, even if "adequacy to the known facts" is no help.
I'll give a bone-headed example. I require a rule to explain this sequence
1 2 3 4
Here are two of the many rules that are adequate to the facts we have so far:
(A) The first number is 1; the nth number is the successor of the (n-1)th number.
(B) The first number is 1, the second is 2, the third is 3, and the fourth is 4.
For some purposes these rules are both good enough, but for some (A) is better and for others (B). For a lot of the stuff we care about around here, (A) is the hands-down winner.
I believe there is a lot we can say here, and I've made no special study of theory-building. There are natural virtues to look for though: robustness, generality, extensibility, "explanatory power" etc. And that's before we consider the consonance of this theory with other theories competing in their domains, the construction of theoretical frameworks, of research programs, and so on.
In short, I can take Quine-Duhem as given without throwing up my hands. In fact, it looks like an advantage that we can try new frameworks without giving up whatever progress we've made. In the longest possible run, there will still be an infinite number of theories available to explain everything that's ever happened, but so what? By then, we should be satisficed (see what I did there?) with any one of those. At that point, all bets are off anyway. Until then, so long as we are still in the process of figuring things out and there's still new data coming in, there are more things of interest than adequacy to the currently known facts.
With that out of the way, I'll start writing about coronavirus, but it should already be clear that I'm not going in assuming it's all just stories and all stories are equally good -- or whatever the right caricature of your position is. I do worry though that I may not know enough to make the distinctions others could, but I will try.
For simplicity, starting with a single issue: whether to get vaccinated.
I don't know if the following is any good at all -- it's all off-the-cuff -- and it's not perfectly obvious how it connects to our recent more abstract exchange, but it has the virtue of going directly at the main question...
What's interesting, and with any luck helpful, here is that this is not the typical case of ethical judgment. In our case, everyone forming such a judgment has faced the same choice themselves.
That means there are two obvious options, which may or may not be important:
1. Approve of making the same decision I did; disapprove otherwise.
2. Approve of following the same process I did; disapprove otherwise.
For people who want both 1 and 2, there's a potential quandary if someone uses the same process but with a differing result. Presumably that indicates they used differing inputs. They shouldn't do that, hence
3. Approve of using the same inputs I did; disapprove otherwise.
If I did the math right, 2 + 3 = 1, unless the procedure in 2 is stochastic.
This might not seem like much of a basis for an ethical judgment, but if you presume everyone facing this choice does so with the intention of behaving ethically, of judging their own decision to be an ethical one, it's not all that crazy.
Can we make the just-like-me approach fail? Is that even possible, if I've set up my criteria this way?
I'm going to cheat now, because it looks to me like the weak spot is 3 (which in turn will tend to weaken 1). This is the weak spot because "inputs" looks way too big: that's not just what you read in the news, or what you read in scientific journals, if you do that sort of thing, or what you may have experienced either personally or professionally; it's also you, your personal health and your circumstances. If you're allergic to something in the vaccine, you can't take it, even though I can, and there's no way I can ignore that and be ethical.
So how do we account for that sort of difference with a rule as simplistic as the rules above? Remember, we're only doing this -- only making these ridiculous rules -- because in this case everyone judging another's decision has had to make exactly such a decision themselves, and that's not the usual case. We're not crafting the General Rules of Ethical Behavior; we're letting people leverage the work they already put in making their own decision to reduce the burden of judging others. Because we can.
So far as I know, I am not allergic to anything in the vaccine. Does someone who is have to make the same choice I did about whether to get vaccinated? That looks like a definite "no" to me. They had no choice. What does that mean for our rules? Have we succeeded in forcing failure? Rule 3, being overbroad, fails, and thus many instances of 1? (Some people might just plump for 1 straight-up, and they're fine.)
I don't think so. I think you get to keep just-like-me and simply exclude the allergic. They didn't face the choice I did, made no decision like or unlike mine, and I judge them not.
How far can we go with this faced-the-same-choice-I-did business? Do we expect the circle to shrink and shrink and shrink until it's only me that faced the same choice I did? I don't see why. But I admit it is now unclear whether the hard part -- which we have made shockingly easy for ourselves so far -- is reaching an ethical judgment, or deciding who is subject to our judgment.
For a concrete example, suppose I am obese and have diabetes. I am at risk of getting seriously ill and needing hospitalization if I get infected; for simplicity, let's say I consider it an ethical duty to minimize the risk of serious illness** so I get the vaccine. Now let's suppose someone else, call him "Isaac", has neither of the risk factors I do and is generally in very good health; Isaac chose not to get vaccinated. Do I count Isaac as facing the same choice I did? He had to decide whether or not to get vaccinated; he may have exactly the same goals I do of not getting seriously ill and needing to be hospitalized; he may have weighed the odds just as I did using the same cutoff for acceptable risk I did (this would be a rule 2 sort of thing) -- but wait a minute! What odds was he weighing? Were they the same ones I was weighing?
You get your choice here. I'm inclined to say yes, because it captures the point that we get whole columns of odds from our local public health officer, broken down by risk factor, maybe age, and so on. I kinda want those to count as one thing because they have one source and we acquire them as one thing. More tellingly, the odds are not exactly a fact about you; that certain odds apply to you, and certain odds don't, is a fact about you.
Which brings me right to the next bit: Isaac weighed the same odds I did; he selected from those columns of odds the ones that apply to him, just as I did; but the particular odds he selected were different because he's different. There is an exact point where -- even though he followed the same process I did with the same external inputs -- because the process involves direct reference to the decision maker, he diverged!
What do I do about the Isaac case? Remember, I don't really want to say that he failed to use the same inputs as I did (that I used me, and he used Isaac) and so is subject to my judgment but fails rule 3: he read exactly the same odds sheet I did, and I want to call that responsible and ethical. But when he did, and checked for his risk factors, he found different odds applied to him.
That's a problem because I approve of Isaac's inputs, and I approve of his process, so I should approve of his choice, but his choice was different from mine, so how can I approve? The whole point of 2 + 3 = 1 is that it's how I judge my own decision to have been ethical. If I have to let Isaac slide, I have to give up something: either I have no basis for concluding that my own decision was good (before it was because I did 2 and 3 right), or I just give up all the rules past 1 and disapprove of Isaac.
I can plump for same-decision-as-me, but suppose I really like the 2 + 3 = 1 approach; can I rule that Isaac, because his odds were different, did not face the same choice I did and is not subject to my judgment, just as if he were allergic to the vaccine? I think that's a cop-out. You save the model from failure only by pushing the failing case outside the domain of application.
Besides, maybe we don't want to give up judging people with different odds; maybe Isaac is going through the same thought process we are and wants to be able to tell people with multiple risk factors, people like me, that the right decision for them is to get vaccinated.
Where we stand: we have forced the complete version of just-like-me, with all 3 rules, to fail. I have to approve of Isaac's decision because of rules 2 and 3 -- he did the same thing I did; but I have to disapprove of Isaac's decision because of rule 1 -- he didn't do the same thing I did.
Our options:
** You could read this as simple rationalist egoism, but there are alternatives: maybe I consider life a gift deserving respect and conservation, and that includes my own, or maybe I feel I have a duty to those who need or care about me, maybe I'm concerned about being burden on the healthcare system. Positing this as my goal is simple and we can treat the moral and rational approaches the same.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Understood.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Ah, yes. Facts underdetermine, theories are overdedetermined. I'm wondering now how many times I've written them the wrong way round before!
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
The problem (as I see it) with all of those is this; that 'theory A is robust' is itself a theory. It'd have facts (the various properties of theory A) and those facts would be mustered in various ways to support the theory that 'theory A is robust'. So why wouldn't those facts also under determine the theory?
Same can be done with coherence, generality, extensibility, "explanatory power" etc. They are all theories about theories and so subject to the same problems.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
'Of interest', however, I can definitely get behind.
So...
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I like the way you've laid it out. It's not a way I'd have looked at things at all, which itself is interesting. For me, (1) doesn't even figure, I assume there are generals, soldiers, nurses, and engineers in any army and so the idea that someone's role could be judged by how similar to mine it is doesn't seem viable off the bat. But then that's my story-telling taking over (it takes an ensemble cast to fill out a proper play) and we agreed to try and avoid that, so I'll frame it another way...
What if we use Wittgenstein's "stand roughly here"? What does it mean to have made 'the same' decision as me? Surely not to have had the same nurse inject the same vaccine in the same hospital? We have to set some 'rough' boundaries around what constitutes 'the same', yes? I think here is were I find it difficult to escape the psychologising - the choice of easy to identify badges for what constitutes 'the same' is a group dynamic based choice. They're easier to use to identify in group and out group. We could have chosen something vague (but more useful) like 'health robustness' as what constitutes 'the same' - "Did Isaac's decision making result in 'the same' level of general health robustness'.
I think the problem is that you're missing a (0.5) which is the jointly held objective. It should go
0.5 - Approve of having the same objective I do, disapprove otherwise
1. Approve of making the same decision I did; disapprove otherwise.
2. Approve of following the same process I did; disapprove otherwise.
3. Approve of using the same inputs I did; disapprove otherwise.
But then we can lose (1) altogether
0.5 - Approve of having the same objective I do, disapprove otherwise
2. Approve of following the same process I did; disapprove otherwise.
3. Approve of using the same inputs I did; disapprove otherwise.
Which works, I think, except it suffers exactly the same problem in abandoning (1) in your original scheme...
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
This, really is our conundrum. Intent matters in ethics. But we can't judge intent, we can't see it, so we have to use a proxy. Virtues are usually a good proxy, but they're the result of long tradition (a long tradition of story-telling - sorry, couldn't resist). We don't have such a long history here. That's why, way back, I brought up the Wakefield/MMR scandal, I think it's our nearest story on which to judge intent (by the proxy of actions) - the sensible, community-minded took the MMR (good), those more interested in appearing 'niche' didn't (bad). I know I keep circling back to stories and I promised I wouldn't. Let me try harder...
To judge intent is essential in an ethical judgement because the actual decision might be very circumstantially specific, but we can't see intent. We have two options;
1. Judge good intent by other means - trust, general character, other decisions...(très system 1)
2. Analyse the circumstances carefully - we do the work to judge intent by getting into those specific circumstances and seeing if they do or don't lead to the outcome - if there's no way we can get the moral outcome from the circumstances, then the decision cannot have been made with good intent...(très system 2)
3. Judge good intent by interrogation - is there a plausible, rational argument that can be presented linking the specific circumstances (your 2 and 3) to the moral objective. If there is (and we're charitable) there's no reason to doubt good intent.
Passing by the theory of theorizing, with some effort.
Quoting Isaac
Nor I!
Not all that happy with the result, but glad I did it. I was in a mode of trying to think through it in the most bone-headed way I could imagine, and it struck me that the absolute simplest way to judge someone else is by whether they do the same thing I do. (It's not impossible that has actually happened in this thread.)
As you say, we get pretty quickly into what's to count as "the same", but I'm still glad I started with (1) because it does something helpful, or, rather, it would have if I had been a little more careful: it leaves no room for akrasia. I think this is why I was reluctant to jettison it at the end of the post -- you don't get credit for having the right intentions but for acting with the right intentions. I really want to keep that, despite my oh-so-modern inclination to redefine the intent of the one who doesn't act. (He must have some other preference that's even stronger, blah blah blah.) What if we don't rush to treat intentions as a sort of theoretical generalization of actions, but honor the traditional recognition that between the intention and the act there falls a shadow?
Quoting Isaac
Oh no, I just said I wasn't going to do it for you. You do you. I have Lakoff (who's a challenge for me, temperamentally) and Goffman in my to-read-soon-ish pile. I'm interested in your narratives, it's just not one of my tools -- oh and I'm slightly allergic to the word "narrative" but I'll get over it.
Back to business.
The big virtue of same-as-me as a strategy is that it's dirt cheap. It even has a sheen of reasonableness in this case that it usually lacks -- usually it looks like bigotry, to be honest -- because we are all of us facing some version of the same choice.
It's such a dead simple strategy that I wonder if it isn't always step 1, but one we've learned to pass over so quickly we almost miss it. So what I'm interested in is how and when we say "Just like me unless ..." or "Just like me except ..."
Here's a sort of sitcom example. Older conservative businessman and a younger female colleague heading to a meeting; older guy wearing standard conservative suit, young woman dressed like she's going out for drinks with friends (whatever that looks like). What the older guy wants to say is, essentially, "Why aren't you dressed like me?" even though that's ludicrous on its face (hence sitcom -- Brooks Brothers didn't have that suit in my size). So what he has to say instead is something like, "Why aren't you dressed like me, but in a way that's appropriate for you?" Or, "Why aren't you dressed the way I would dress if I were a young woman?" Yet another way to put this might be: "You can't dress exactly like me, because you're a young woman, but why didn't you dress as much like me as you could?" And hovering in the background is the fully generalized version: you're not me, but why aren't you as much like me as you can be? (And possibly there's a weird double-judgment under that: why don't you want to be as much like me as you can be? What about me do you disapprove of?)
Sadly, heading to work -- more later.
The idea of the bone-headed approach is to resist using the abstractions (intent, values) that have already accumulated here, so that we can catch abstraction in the act. We want to see what motivated the step of abstraction, or what forced it. What is the precise function of the step of abstracting, what purpose or need does it serve?
Around here that might be, what failure would force me to consider an abstract element of my action, and of yours, called the "intention"? That's more work, so why do we do it? (That's actually an open question at the moment. I could see an argument that checking whether we're the same in one way is cheaper than checking if we're alike in general, since that's checking a huge number of component identities. But that assumes a lot of abstracting already done. It just sounds too textbook-ish to be true.)
(( It used to be common to say that ancient cultures did not consider your intention at all when judging your actions right or wrong. Sleeping with your mother is wrong even if you don't know it's her. And, the story goes, it was Christianity that ushered in the era of obsessing over intentions. Don't know if there's any truth to any of that. If so, we're trying to catch ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny. ))
One further note on my example: it should be clear enough how full-on bigotry works here; if certain steps of abstracting are not available, you might quickly conclude, "You're a woman (or not white, or the wrong religion, etc.) so there's nothing you can do to be enough like me," for some value of "enough".
But we'll be getting to putting values on "enough" eventually, I'm sure.
More than once I think.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
True. My 'Three Point Plan' is no improvement because it only contains intentions, and actions are the best proof we have of intentions. But this is why I provided some tentative means of judging intent, albeit roughly.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Excellent. Goffman on Frame Analysis and Lakoff on metaphor, I hope. Their best contributions.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, it's got a slightly 'social science' taint to it now...sorry. I have to still use it though, I'm supposed to be a professional, I can't go around saying 'story', I sound like a five year old.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes! This gets very much to the heart of what these judgements are doing. But it's selective - back to stories again (see how I avoided 'narrative'). It's those who ought to be playing the same part as us but who appear to be ad-libbing their lines, or reading from a different script. It's nit that we actually want everyone to be like us (would you?!), but we want the way we play out our roles to be predictable and secure, we don't want similar roles played too differently. Your sitcom example wouldnot have worked if she was an escort.
Exactly. Goffman looks like he's almost too much fun to read.
Quoting Isaac
Yes, that's what I find interesting about the bone-headed approach; "just like me" isn't in there as a goal or even a preference. It's just a really cheap analysis. It's "process", but shows up as if it's a preference in almost exactly the same way models also behave as if they're filters. I need a cheap way to figure out your behavior, so I start by comparing you to me. It's not about my preferences at all, but it looks like it is.
Will have to get to the rest later. I still really want to see what will drive us to form abstractions like "intention" that we'll use in more sophisticated analysis.
Yes, I'd missed your last post (wrote half of my response earlier). Heading out now, will have a look in the morning.
Interesting. As a guess, trust. If we're short-cutting, then the only reason to give that up is if it's not giving us unsurprising results. So to understand why we might give up any shortcut we need to look at where it might be producing surprise. Here, if I were a pro-vaccine, pro-science, left-of-centre intellectual (to pick one of the off-the-shelf social narratives), I'd expect a super-libertarian conservative to be anti-vaccine and might simply decry their choice as part of my script (why do people boo the villain in panto). But it would be surprising to find another pro-vaccine, pro-science, left-of-centre intellectual who, on this occasion, wasn't on script. That, I'd have thought, would trigger an analysis of 'intent', or some other abstraction, to resolve the surprise.
But the alternative is to simply deny the person acting so off-script is actually playing the same role as you afterall, rather they're nothing but an imposter! Much quicker. So maybe no trigger for analysis there either.
There always seem to be shortcuts available, and always reason to take them.
So, at the end of the day, we need the analysis to have a gain greater than the effort, doing it needs to be part of the story.
Heard a new term yesterday, about how news outlet keep scaring people with new variants: "variant porn".
Oh wow! the press and media do not know what to say anymore... we can also find out other names too. I would name it the mustard variant
The same is predicted to happen with flu this year, and in places like Australia, probably next year. Long lockdowns come at a deadly price.
The simplest things I can think of are cases where something blocks action. That could be something external, akrasia, laziness, uncertainty, who knows. I could recognize in my own case that I have chosen a course of action but not carried it out yet, and describe this as having an intention. If you tell me you have chosen a course of action, and I know you haven't acted, I could describe you as having an intention.
For an action actually carried out, we're in Quine-Duhem territory: there are any number of ways of describing the action, mixing reasons and causes and beliefs and preferences and circumstances. Presumably the only reason to bother parsing intention and friends here is to make better predictions than we can make just using the action itself.
For the blocked-action case, it seems like the baseline would be a single prediction: that the intended act will be carried out. (And then we can modify later as we lose patience and so on.) We can think of intention as the well-defined little box into which we put "what you will do unless ..." So an intention is a special kind of prediction. Duh.
One funny thing about this is that if it's a single prediction (instead of a whole complex with various confidences), we can reverse the association -- that is, treat something for which we have a single prediction as if it were an intention.
I think you can actually hear this in daily conversation. If the baseline expectation is same-as-me, I can just predict you'll continue to be same-as-me. (Single prediction, yay!) If it turns out you've not taken some action I would have, or in fact have, I assume you intend to (this is the previous paragraph's point).
"Got my jab yesterday. You get yours?"
"No."
"But you're going to right?"
It's the immediate fallback. If you're not just like me, something stopped you from being like me -- gosh, what could it have -- nope, doesn't matter what it was, no use spending calories on that, presumably things will get back on track soon and you'll be just like me again. I predict it, therefore you intend it.
We know from our own case how externalities can interfere with our actions, and when we're forced to consider someone's behavior diverging from our prediction, we'll reach for that first, and preserve the assumption that your intention is to be like us. To show you this chain of reasoning, movies have to use dialogue, and they do this all the time:
"How was your date with Marcus last night?"
"I didn't go."
"Oh, got called into work again?"
"No."
"Marcus couldn't make it?"
"No."
"????" unable even to form the thought that you decided not to go.
The point of all of this is that we might use the same-as-me strategy as the starting point for judgment because it's dirt cheap. Similarly we might use same-as-me predictions because they're dirt cheap, guaranteed to be degenerate non-branching decision trees. Non-branching trees we talk about as intentions, both for ourselves and for others. (This is consonant with current neuroscience, right? We act, for reasons we know not, and if needed bolt-on a retrodiction of that action and call it the intention we had when we acted.) Non-branching trees are cheaper, and we will resist giving them up even when surprised.
I keep emphasizing the same-as-me strategy because it does seem like the cheapest baseline available, but your (Goffmanesque?) scripts and part-playing are similar, right? Once I've stocked my toolkit with single-path predictions that can be quickly and cheaply selected, I'll insist on using them. And when you fail to say the lines I've assigned you, my immediate fallback will be assuming you intend to say them and something stopped you. Acknowledging that you diverged on purpose is the last thing I want to do, because then to predict you I'll have to engage in expensive research (i.e., talk to you, which is not so bad, talk is cheap, but in this case I'll also have to listen to you and that blows).
Yes, I think so. From a position of uncertainty about the variables, we might want to be wary (from a desire for surprise avoidance) of developing models which are insufficiently sensitive to them. If, every time I see a cup of foaming green liquid I recoil, I'll probably save myself a poisoning and only miss out on the occasional niche cocktail. But if, every time I see a cup of any liquid at all I recoil, I'm going to go thirsty. The model response is too insensitive to the variables colour and foaminess, which make a difference.
Here, if we have a just-like-me model, with caveats (not literally identical, just close enough), then we'd be wise to know something of the variables which determine that difference (the extent to which it's not exactly-like-me). Not knowing those variables leave us applying our shortcut randomly. We know we can't expect others in our role to behave exactly like us, but we've no idea how much variety to allow.
Take your smartly dressed man. He can judge his female colleague, even using the just-like-me method if he knows the variable of difference. He knows that [gender] is a variable, and he knows that it causes variation in dress-vs-trousers, colour, make-up etc. He knows it doesn't allow difference in the extent of scruffiness, sports branding, or decency. Knowing these he can use just-like-me because 'like' is well-defined.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, that's right, and this gets us into very conflicting territory, between folk-psychology and psychology. In folk psychology, 'Intentions' are a similar beast, both in terms of prediction and in terms of cause. "I will walk down the road because I intend to go to the pub" and "I walked down the road because I intended to go to the pub". But psychologically (in my model anyway - everyone else is, unfortunately, wrong!), prediction is about interaction with the environment, sensation<>belief (likelihood to act as if...) and cause is, as you say, about retrospective storytelling, memory<>belief. Two quite different beasts.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, I'm tempted to say scripts are cheaper. The trouble with same-as-me, is that it always has caveats, it requires the assessment of sameness. Scripts tend to already accommodate variety. There's a range of next lines, a range of next actions, and a range of tokens identifying others playing the same role. Tradition has already widened the parameters in response to a kind of cultural evolutionary pressure to do so. It's too surprising to have too strict a requirement (people can't keep to it and so often act out of role), but it's also too surprising to have too lose a requirement (it doesn't have any predictive power at all. The hero of a story never does exactly the same thing (except the latest Star Wars films, of course!), but they're always recognisable, they never kill and old lady for the fun of it, and if they do, we're cross.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yeah, this is still true notwithstanding the above, but regarding what's happening here? I'm stepping out of role, by not getting vaccinated, or being insufficiently just-like-them, but the response is to assume I've done so mistakenly? I'm not sure that quite describes the responses, seems like there's more to it.
That's very interesting. You could be absolutely right. Of course my approach has been to presume that we put as little work as possible into the sameness judgment -- starting from zero, just assuming it, and revising as little as possible at each step. So you could be right that just assigning to someone an off-the-shelf role is cheaper. Sadly, this is starting to look like something you'd want to design experiments for and the armchair phase might be done.
Quoting Isaac
Sure. But now I have a new way of describing my thing about "not believing in disagreement": same-as-me can assume you're not getting vaccinated because there's something you don't know (that I do), or don't understand (that I do), or indeed that you've made a mistake, some error of reasoning (that I didn't). You having your own reasons, also valid, is the absolute last resort. There may even be some general exasperation at having to go all the way to the end of the list of options for dealing with you -- you've cost people precious calories, and at each step towards the next more expensive option there's this hope that we're about to be done, right before that hope is dashed.
All of that is *before* genuine disagreement is acknowledged, grudgingly, and I don't have anything to say about that yet.
Already have though. from the famous (infamous) Asch, Milgram and Zimbardo, through to the less famous stuff like Birney, Burdick, and Teevan (work on hippy culture in the 60s) or the stunningly insightful, prescient, well-designed, and handsomely researched, but sadly before-it's-time, work done by a young psychology researcher at the tail end of the last millennium...I forget his name...
All suffer, of course from the perennial problem of psychology experiments in that they're little more than glorified guesswork, but you know, glorified guesswork is better than just, well, guesswork.
If we can adopt roles just by changing clothes, then it seems unlikely that an all pervasive just-like-me system is in play. If our own judgement of appropriate behaviour is dictated somewhat by tokens of social role (dress, badges, titles), then it seems unlikely we'll not be influenced by those same tokens when we see them on others and judge the appropriateness of their behaviour accordingly.
What we could say, I suppose, is that we still have a just-like-me judgement system when we're within roles (ie judging someone in the same role as us). It might be that we judge others by conformity to their social-stereotypes but judge the detail of the role we're currently playing by our own decisions within it, rather than the much broader parameters of it's own social narrative. Would be interesting, I'm not aware of anything done in that specific area.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, this is good. I mean, I couch it in terms of social roles, but the analysis is the same so it doesn't matter. The last resort is that the social role we're playing is broader than we thought, contains more options. After all the whole point of social roles is to constrain the maddening chaos of options. Or, heaven forfend, that we might actually be playing the role wrong. That we might be the ones off-script. What an annoyance finding that out would be.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, and I'm truly sorry about that, litigation is available, my professional indemnity insurance covers lost calories.
I honestly have no idea what value the "just-like-me" idea has. It is An Idea I Had, so I've been screwing around with it.
One point about it of interest is that in the vaccination case, everyone who has an opinion about another's behavior has faced the same choice, or some variation on the same choice, as those they are judging, which is a little unusual; and what's unusual about that -- as opportunities for moral judgment go -- is taken as the usual case for discussions that aspire to transcend taste: philosophy, politics, science, the sort of stuff we do around here.
We don't treat differences of opinion as a matter of taste here: when a question is put to you, it is the same question that's put to everyone; disagreement between you and me is exactly a case of you not being enough like me. Maybe that counts as a case of this:
Quoting Isaac
It's just a little thin, at first glance, to call discussing philosophy "taking on the role of person-discussing-philosophy". On the other hand, people do have a surprising amount to say about the behavior they expect of their fellow discussers -- "I don't have the burden of proof, you do," "Why won't you answer my question?!" "Why do you keep bringing that up, I've already addressed it!" and the rest. Maybe it's just that within a discussion there are a number of different roles available and we tend both to lose track and make too much of which role each participant is supposed to be playing at the moment. Bleh.
Anyhow, this thread did have a kind of doubling up of the usual demand that everyone have the same opinion I do -- as a matter of philosophical integrity -- as a bonus demand that they make the same decision I did IRL.
I suppose what's of particular interest to you is when the social roles or the parts we're playing obtrude upon our "universal" discussion. People use this as an accusation -- "Of course, you'd think that, because you're a tree-hugging Gaia worshiper." This amounts to a claim that I have reasons for my beliefs but your beliefs are caused, which might be the most widely held belief on the forum.
That's cool, I'm always interested in ideas.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, in classical 'moral dilemma' terms, this is a moral dilemma we all face (as opposed to the seeming abundance of runaway trolley cars which remarkably I've never had the misfortune to have to deal with). And also, perhaps, that the decision is binary. It's not like giving to charity, or even abortion which can have scalar answers.
The effect is maybe to make the script less variable. We see it in the associations. Trump thinks the virus came from China, everyone sane has to think it didn't. Gun-toting rednecks don't mask, urban liberals have to mask... there's only two options and if one of them is the one the villain picked, the hero's choices are a bit limited. They can't both wear black.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Possibly. I think that the anonymity of internet discussion just allows for a greater variety of roles and people may lose track.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, we read this a lot. Of course we all have reasons for our beliefs, it's just that they're not always reasons other people find satisfactory. That's all we've got here really, an exchange of reasons and a summing up of why we find the other's unsatisfactory.
Except, of course, it's all bullshit because the idea that people are truly assessing reasons like philosophical jewellers examine a diamond for flaws is nonsense. The decision comes first, then the assessment of reason to find sufficient flaws to justify it.
Here I am slowly peeling back the lid so that the worms can only come out of the can one by one and we get a chance to look at them, and then you come along and just smash the thing open on the counter.
First, even if our reasons are rationalizations, they can be "good" or "bad": not all stories make sense.
Next, given Quine-Duhem, maybe the reasons you give are not your actual reasons in any meaningful sense, but they could have been, and what difference does it make?
And when it comes to other people's ideas, I tend to think the intuitive, even "emotional" response is valuable, even when it precedes whatever rational support we can find for it. (My posting history is littered with proof.) Something in me has run some models and said "no", I just don't know why. And I happen to *really* enjoy trying to figure out what my intuition might have spotted on my behalf. It could turn out my intuition has been jumping to conclusions again and I can overrule it. Bad intuition! Bad! But it gets a lot right too.
Your burden would be to show how the roles we play and the stories we tell can evolve, without a two-tiered model that explicitly accommodates review and revision. I think.
I have several thousand other things to say about all this...
This and the psychologists fallacy, which is that you can't allege someone else's failure to be objective is due to inherent psychological limitations and not apply the same to yourself.
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). (No @frank this isn't derived from that report, just a general observation. :smile:)
Not wild about this argument. Or maybe I just don't quite understand it. Is the idea that psychologist's claim is self-refuting, or are we just calling out a double standard? Maybe I just can't work up much enthusiasm for the idea of "objective truth", either to affirm it or deny it.
How do you see this argument "biting"? Can you spell it out a little for me?
I place this in the camp of deterministic problems, where you are forced to deny meaningful assessment can exist but must accept you just must believe as you must. No one can get outside his own bubble and is stuck with accepting what he will regardless of the evidence or logic presented to him.
It's anti-philosophical and anti-rational. It asserts a fixed state of beliefs for all based upon predetermined psychological factors.
What's the problem with saying this is often, pre-reflectively, the case, but that with sufficient self examination the tendency may be overcome, and you might actually change your mind?
The "fixed" part is just empirically false, but can't I believe that my beliefs are fully determined by my state and my environment, rather than a matter of free choice, and just note that what I read, the arguments people make to me, and so on, are also part of my environment, and go into modifying my state?
If course you can believe that. If determinism is true then you will either be determined to believe that or not. And the determination could of course change.
I think @Hanover is pointing to the problem that, if determinism is true, then beliefs are not rationally, but causally, determined. Of course the two determinants might appear to coincide, but if determinism is true then there is no necessity that they must or that we must be correct in thinking that our beliefs are rationally determined.
If the algorithm of the universe dictates Srap will believe X, it will be so. If you claim your beliefs are from what you read, that will be the case because the algorithm dictated you would say that. All is determined, even your beliefs for why you have your beliefs. If you take seriously the idea that your beliefs are beyond your control, you have no reason to debate your beliefs.
I place the ability to freely judge an argument in the category of foundational assumptions required to make the world intelligible. If you wish to reject this foundational assumption, you go the way of the solipsist, and it's for that reason I don't find that objection worth debating. It's a universal rejection of reason, and it could be inserted in every thread on this site.
Telling me I'm stuck arguing for X because my ilk just believes that way ends every debate, thus my claim it is an anti-philosophical, anti-rational position.
And evidently don't need one, as you just said. It's still a fact that I do. Maybe what I say causes your beliefs to change or fails to; maybe you evaluate my words rationally and freely choose to agree or not. What difference does it make?
Quoting Hanover
And again that's just empirically false and you could easily prove it.
Is it inconsistent to disbelieve this part (the "fixed" and "stuck" business) if I believe the other part?
Sure, I get that.
And if the thesis of determinism is true, then some of the things I say, and some of the things you could reasonably claim are presupposed both by what I say and by my saying them, are not literally true. Whatever that means, if anything.
I don't see why I have to care. I absolutely do not know what the current thinking either in science or in philosophy is on determinism. I don't know if it's a well-defined thesis at all. I do not endorse it.
But neither do I endorse what Strawson famously called the "obscure and panicky metaphysics of libertarianism." That position I know I can't make any sense of.
So I'm inclined to pass by the whole question as ill-formed, and I'm not at all inclined to throw in with either side. There's plenty of other stuff to think about.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I agree and wasn't making any claim for the truth of determinism. I've always thought that compatibilism is a fudge, though, because the logics of determinism and freedom just don't mesh with one another.
So this
Quoting Janus
was just to say that change of mind is not inconsistent with determinism, leaving aside the question of freedom.
.
Quoting Hanover
Meant to respond to this idea. No.
The only things I want to capture by using the familiar word "rationalization" are that they are rational -- they do work to justify the position they're supposed to -- and they are post-hoc.
I think of them like proofs in mathematics: you can have a crummy proof that you stumble on god knows how and thus learn that a hypothesis is true; later you can come up with a beautiful proof that shows the deep connections between things, those connections motivating each step, with the result being a sequence of steps that shows clearly why the theorem is true and illuminates the field of which it is a theorem. The latter is better, and the latter is the kind of rationalization we like.
I'm so indifferent to the issue I don't even care if you call me a "compatibilist" (as people have Strawson). Isms are junk, suitable only for doing cereal-box philosophy. ("This one tastes better but I know this other one is better for me, hmmmm." Like that. That's not thinking, that's shopping.)
This line of discussion wasn't intended to sway your opinion on determinism, but was initiated only to explain my objection to @Isaac's line of argument. I raised the psychologist's fallacy, and you asked for a better description of it. I get that the free will debate isn't something that everyone will be interested in thinking through,, but if an argument is presented that implicates an unworkable logical outcome, that can't be ignored simply because it broaches a topic not of personal interest.
I suppose that's fair. I was a little feisty about it, but I tried to indicate that I'm not sure it's an issue worth anyone's interest, not in the form it's usually presented.
On the other hand, your original point was about objectivity and you never picked up that thread. Putting the pieces together I get something like this:
1. Our beliefs are objective only if arrived at through reason.
2. If our beliefs are caused then they are not arrived at through reason.
Therefore
3. If our beliefs are caused, then they are not objective.
Is that the argument? I mean, (2) is clearly true, but what's the justification for (1)? Why isn't (1) something more like "Our beliefs are only objective if supported by reason"? [hide="or..."](You could even broaden it to "supportable by reason" -- but then we'd have to figure out whether you can know the IOU will eventually be paid up, and it's clearly more fiscally respectable not to hand out credences on credit.)[/hide] Then (1) would leave room for post-facto justifications, which, as I said, is more or less how I use the word "rationalization". (If the word "rationalization" is the problem because it has a disreputable common usage, I'm happy to drop it.)
But why does that have to be the actual process? It feels like we're treading perilously close to a genetic fallacy, or mixing up discovery and confirmation. -- Is that the right pair of terms? I remember at one time it being a big deal in the philosophy of science, that the steps leading to an insight, an hypothesis, might not be logical or defensible, might be some chance thing, but no worries because the process of testing that hypothesis are completely different, rigorous, logical and exacting. Maybe people don't think that anymore, but it always made sense to me. I'd have ideas at the chessboard and no idea where they came from, but then you have to analyze. That simple. Maybe that's another reason post-hoc justification seems so natural to me.
NOTE ADDED:
Not challenging your use of "objective" but what's it mean here? Is it synonymous with "arrived at by reason"?
Sorry, my mood was perhaps worse than I ought to have allowed myself to communicate whilst in.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, that's exactly the purpose, I think, of the stories in the first place. Not just any old story will do, some are better than others and we can swap out the rubbish ones for the better ones. This is spot on. Precisely my aim in analysing such stories (in myself, anyway - I've yet to be convinced that such analysis alone can influence others - as in my analysis of their story).
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
The difference is only in recognising the limits. For each reason you identify as part of your post-hoc rationalisation, you might dislike it, you might want to choose a better story, and that better story might lead to better intuitive actions next time, but you'd miss that opportunity if you only considered your actions to be determined by those reasons you originally gave. All reasons sound reasonable - we're not generally that stupid, we don't act contrary to what seems like reason. So to change our actions we have to have some concept of alternative reasons (rather than just a concept of reasons being flawed). Quine-Duhem. There's too many acceptable reasons, we have to choose.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Maybe. It depends how you analyse the outcome. What properties of an action (prompted by intuition) do you use to categorise it as 'Bad' or 'Good'? Is it the extent to which you're satisfied with it - surely just the extent to which it fits with your identity, your own social narrative? You can't be judging it by any objective standard of outcome, that would require a level of brainpower we just don't have access to. Shortcuts aren't always an optional energy-saver, sometimes they're simply a necessity of the mechanism, like a pocket calculator's short version of Pi.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
No, I think a two-tiered model is appropriate. We just shouldn't get caught up in the social exercise of what is a private function. You may well review and revise your stories, select others which fit better or feel more satisfying, these may well lead to better actions in the future. That's not the necessarily same thing as you engaging in the social game of review and revision. That's all I'm saying (in what was way too ornery and laconic a turn of phrase...sorry).
Quoting Hanover
Have I done this? If you can find an example, I'd be sorely disappointed It's certainly been my intention and (as far as I can remember) my actual reality, to be clear that this applies to me as much as anyone else.
I don't see how that causes a problem. One's opinion will be formed, in large part, by the opinion which is used as a membership token for the social groups to which one wishes to belong, or the social roles one plays. That includes my opinion just expressed, which is part of a generic 'psychologist' role - fusty academic (I even have the tweeds and the leather armchair...), see everything as a psychological issue, detracted observer, etc.. A social narrative, a story. One I quite like (which is why I keep it).
I don't see how it's being a role prevents me playing it, or prevents anyone else from responding to it in kind.
. OK, that seems fair enough.
It can prevent others from taking such role playing seriously. If your philosophical ideas are just pretense, then why should anyone (including you) care about them?
This is a false opposition. Even if determinism is true, it could be that beliefs are determined by reason in a fully deterministic manner.
Imagine for instance a species where a certain biological sub-system is devoted among other things to "reasoning". This sub-system works deterministically, like a machine, but based on logical rules and procedures: it reasons logically to determine the optimal response for the organism on the basis of all inputted information. In this situation, the organism could be determined by reason, even in a determinist universe.
And this I disagree with. Choice of opinion is dependent upon all sorts of drivers, perhaps some upon their desire to fit in, others other factors, but in all instances not fixed and a matter of choice. Many, hopefully most, form their opinion based upon a fidelity to finding the truth.
To the extent you argue opinion is controlled by forces beyond your control, your argument ceases to have persuasive value because it admits to not being based upon truth and it denies my responses are based upon truth.
The larger narrative your position speaks to is to give credence to a post-truth description that tries to avoid harsh criticism of fringe nonsense like ant-vaxx positions, suggesting those opinions have equal validity, with rejection of anti-vaxx being based not upon objectivity, but just upon me wanting to get along with my peers by showing them I stand against anti-vaxx.
The sometimes violent peer division you've identified isn't a complex sociological and psychological matter that just naturally exists within each of us, but it is the outcome of a nefarious and intentional political effort to polarize and divide the population to acquire political power. That there is such division over such minor requests like wearing masks and getting an FDA approved vaccine (and the unadulterated bullshit of the "stolen" election) speaks to the power of our power seekers in creating camps and securing votes. It needn't be this way.
That people can be swayed by group identity desires, fear, prejudice and whatever else is nothing new, but the choice of what to do remains in the hands of the people. We're not lemmings and the responsibility rests with us, and we can't blame our bad choices on just trying to get along with our peer group.
So, if your vaccination decision is based upon your wanting to get along with your party of choice, you've abrogated your responsibility as a responsible person.
This is the quandary - if you accept that beliefs that are caused are not arrived at by reason, you have no way of knowing whether they happen to also be reasonable.
So, (1) I believe the earth is round based upon causality, and (2) there are objective reasons to believe the earth is round. How do I ever know #2, given #1? All I have access to is #1.
Independent agency (the ability to have free choice) I take as a given (compare perhaps to a Kantian pure intuition) required for an intelligible view of the world. If we don't presuppose we are capable deciding before we decide, the enterprise of deciding is meaningless.
:up:
Indeed, mechanical puppets don't usually make much sense.
This I think I need a little clarification on. -- I have thoughts, but it's easier to ask.
Quoting Isaac
This is the main point I hadn't been clear on. Even in cases where the two processes are naturally related -- as in a philosophical discussion -- they are not the same process, can't be the same process, aren't even the same kind of process.
Totally with you -- got there by a different route long ago -- but I hadn't connected the dots. Makes many of my remarks about intuition at least a little irrelevant, if still charming. We are still interested in how people form and revise their beliefs, but on a separate track we're interested in how people discuss their beliefs, and we're interested in the nexus of the two but without assuming there's just a sort of wave of reason that passes through groups of people causing each of them to speak in turn and enlightening the rest.
I have some worries I suspect we're about to get to. It might be best to go back to the coronavirus example to clarify what we're up to.
The answer I want to give is that this is clearly false: I don't only have access to (1). And then I give the example of having an idea for a chess move which I then analyze. The causes that led to my entertaining that candidate move are one thing -- a thing I likely don't have access to -- but the analysis is a whole different thing, and the analysis is where I establish whether the move is reasonable.
But that's not your issue. Your issue is that whatever I do by why of analyzing a candidate move is also caused, so it's a thought of the same type. Your argument is that
(a) I never get access to uncaused thoughts, and
(b) only uncaused thoughts are arrived at by reason, and
(c) only thoughts arrived at by reason are reasonable.
(b) is obviously true; (a) I think I want to accept because rejecting it strikes as believing in magic, sorry; but I still see no argument for (c) and that's exactly what I asked for last time.
Why should the history of my having a thought, a psychological phenomenon, have any bearing on whether that thought is supported or supportable by reason, which is an entirely different theoretical framework, and one that I have access to?
I mean, there's a regress, if you want to go that way: I have an idea for a move, don't know why; I analyze it in a certain way, don't know why; how do I know the second step conforms to reason without analyzing it? I don't. But neither do the believers in uncaused thoughts.
I must be missing something obvious, for which I apologize, but I'm not getting it. I think you're saying that if I believe thoughts are caused I have to completely give up the other theoretical framework by which we judge thoughts as reasonable, but for the life of me I don't see why. For you that verb "judge" has to mean "freely judge" and if the judgment itself is caused it doesn't count, but that looks like a circular argument to me. (I want to say here that "judge" is a psychological term in one framework but not in the other, but I don't know if that helps or hurts. And now I've said it anyway.)
I have some sympathy with this view, at least if we dial back the optimality a little and just assume we're learning organisms that get better at being rational, something like that.
On the other hand, I have a whole different compatibility approach that acknowledges two different frameworks for describing our thoughts, although I find it much easier to get confused here than with your suggestion. (See the hash I'm about to make of my conversation with @Hanover below. Sometimes I wish I were better at philosophy.)
For any answer you give, of what value would it be for me to ask you if it's correct and to provide your basis, and won't the problem be compounded if I also am controlled by an algorithm as well?
That is to say, you're just going to recite to me what you must.
Must we not assume independent judgment to assess anything meaningfully?
I am sympathetic to this kind of "compatibilism" it seems you are referring to. It starts with Spinoza; with the idea that explanations in terms of extensa and explanations in terms of cogitans are different kinds of perspectives on the one thing. Or again think of Sellar's "space of reasons" and "space of causes".
You are wrong to think we need free will to keep them out. If I want to talk about justification, neither causes nor their denial have any place there. It's a different framework altogether.
And that's true for conversations as well. You can describe them within a social psychological framework or within a rational analysis framework. The latter does not need or want a denial of whatever views about causation are included in the former.
Bingo! You win a prize, @Janus!
That makes absolutely no difference to the demonstration.
The only thing you need for reason to be compatible with determinism, is for reason to be determinant, causal, i.e. to be a cause of other things.
If reason could not cause anything, it could not exist in a determinist world, which is all about cause and effect.
People don't care about stuff because they ought to.
And how do they go about doing that? Is it 'true' that abortion is unacceptable after six weeks, or is it 'false'? What on earth would true and false mean in this context and how would we go about pinning down only one version of it?
Quoting Hanover
It doesn't have to admit it. Advertisers have a good deal of success getting people to wear believe Nike trainers are better than any other brand. Did they need to appeal to universal truth to do that? Or did they need to get a few famous sports celebrities to wear Nike?
Quoting Hanover
Really? So the 'power seekers' are the ones spreading the anti-vax message among otherwise sensible scientists, while the poor powerless government and pharmaceutical industry just want everyone to be happy? Who are these devils? Name names man, they need to be held to account.
You nailed it further down. Appraising our own stories is a private exercise, we may find one story is too untenable, too conflicting, or just simply don't like it anymore. We may gradually change it (it's notoriously difficult though). None of this has anything to do the the social game of arguing over the rightness and wrongness of these extremely filtered, highly formalised, highly sanitised versions of our 'reasons' for believing what we do that we might write about here.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes, that's exactly it. Philosophy is a social endeavour and it's therefore part of the role we play in the story we have. We present this 'officially sanctioned' version of our reasons (almost always post hoc), as our move, and we receive a similar diplomatic offering in return for us to try and counter. Like any good story, this will make us think, might even change our preferred narrative in some way, but we'd be mad to believe it to be some faithful external representation of the deeply psychological reasoning process that results in our webs of belief.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Yes. that's spot on the way I'm thinking.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I'd expect nothing less!
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
OK. As you may have noticed from my posting rate, I'm a bit short on time at the moment, but will certainly be interested in what you have to say, even if it takes a while to respond.
Trump, Bolsenaro, BoJo and co.
Right. It is the only logical point of view on this matter that I can think of. Otherwise one falls into the liar's paradox, as @Hanover rightly pointed out. Mechanical puppets don't usually make much sense.
Most of the countries are already taking actions to ensure the third vaccine in the coming months or year.
There's a category difference between fact based questions and moral ones, and the inquiry here has been of factual ones (i.e. the effectiveness of vaccines). In any event, I do believe in moral realism and reject subjectivism. So, whether a fetus may ethically be aborted does have a final answer, but I'll admit it (like many factual questions) is unclear. Whether it is morally ethical to murder my neighbor, on the other hand, isn't a matter of meaningful debate. That there are some issues readily known and others not does not logically entail that there is sufficient uncertainty in the world for universal skepticism. It just means we can know some things better than others.
Quoting Isaac
Contextualized to this debate, here in a philosophy forum where you would want to be persuasive, fidelity to the truth would be the way you would sway others. Whether Michael Jordan believes we should or shouldn't vaccinate wouldn't work here, but to the extent you're arguing that people make bad decisions based upon bad information, we very much agree.
Quoting Isaac
Your sarcasm isn't even logical. If you think it absurd that I'd suggest the pharmaceutical companies are pure and honest (which I didn't), you can't then submit that it's absurd for me to suggest there are politicians who are less than pure and honest.
You can Google for the names of those politicians and those politicizing the anti-vax movement as well as me. What I can say is that pharmaceutical companies, epidemiologists, and public health officials have primary reasons for existence other than the securing of power. I realize they are corruptible, but a politician unapologetically and openly makes it his primary focus to obtain power. We can hypothesize conspiracies as they relate to the dishonest motives of any person or industry, but, with politicians, we have to accept as point of fact that they are waking up every morning with no other ambition than to secure votes and power. That, unlike the others mentioned, is their primary focus.
" I have some thoughts.
Well, they say they’re researching. A Ouija Board is kind of like research…if you don’t think about it too hard. It’s not like we’re asking that they be able to diagram the fucking Krebs cycle. A minimum of understanding is acceptable; “Germs bad, make people dead. Peoples includes me. If peoples dead, no Slurpees at Quicky-mart! Some peoples know more than me. Good to listen to smart peoples, good to stay alive.” This would be fine And you don’t need any empathy for your hatchlings of Grandma, let alone those other people who, allegedly, exist. Of course, the mere act of acknowledging that some ‘peoples’ might know more about some things than the average gentle Fox news viewer, is a mortal insult to the audience’s patriotism, if not a direct attack on their ego-centric narcissism.
Just based on what I know about human history, it appears that with great regularity, a decent percentage of our fellow humans go completely off the fucking rails. Or, disturbingly, perhaps the moments of lucidity are the aberrant state. Anywhoo. Usually, it’s due to an idiot or group of same, manipulating people for power, wealth or maybe simply self-aggrandizement. Sometimes it just happens sort of organically. Giles the Goat Boy has a vision of the Virgin Mary giving him a hand job in heaven, and the next thing you know the whole town is naked and burning down the Jewish quarter.
One would think that basic survival instincts would prevent this kind of thing. Or, now that we’re ‘literate’ and know how this shit ends, we’d put the brakes on. (FYI It ends badly, for everybody, including the instigators-though by then you and I and our ilk are dead, so, no “I told you so,” for us.) Unfortunately, the only thing that has actually stood in the way of going full ‘demented lemming’ has been the weakest of all controls…manners.
Sometimes these are believed to be enforced by theological principles. Fear of being toasted on Old Snape’s marshmallow fork for eternity if you pork the upstairs maid while the wife is at bridge club. Or, using a handkerchief, lest demons fly out when sneezing. Sometimes the law. But, really, who thinks about the federal sentencing guidelines when knocking over a liquor store. The Crack ain’t going to buy itself Bubba!
But at bottom, (another place not to put your marshmallow fork, per Leviticus) it is the rare neurotic that actually makes the connection between not flushing and the fiery pit, or consults the neurotic OCD of Emily Post, for that matter. Generally, it is an unconscious compliance with social norms, which one would hope reflect some selective pressure not to overtly stifle DNA’s mandate to continue on. This can be seen in such conventions as reconsidering carbs, when half the village drops like flies after eating Mrs. Dengue’s dinner rolls, running with scissors and burying the dead in the water supply.
It has usually been socially unacceptable, and therefore personally embarrassing, to openly express stupidly dangerous and objectively false ideas. Except in certain religious traditions, where it is mandatory to maintain group identity.. and to get unfettered access to the complimentary donuts.
Equally unfortunately, manners are dependent on unspoken and often subconscious group consensus. So, once the current trend-setters start picking their noses, slapping the waiter for thrills and farting musically at state dinners, well, the door to a hell-scape creaks slowly open. It’s worse when defying social norms becomes a noble expression of resistance to ‘tyranny.’ Such as the tyrannical notion that casually and randomly killing your fellow citizens is, at a minimum, unsporting.
Basically, the difficulty is that, as I believe you and I know all too well, acting stupidly and selfishly is fun. Especially if you’re in a gang who won’t make fun of your intellectual limitations. It’s especially great if you believe you are doing the Lord’s work. The cherry on top is pissing off the smart people who you believe are mocking you for your ignorance (I admit it). Who doesn’t enjoy placing others in fear, experiencing what passes for power on T.V. and generally inflating one’s poorly constituted ego? Lastly, believing something that is widely contradicted, or acting on it like you do believe it, makes you the holder of ‘special knowledge.’ God knows, feeling special is better than merely being a faceless cog and, it takes a shit load less effort than figuring out what the actual source of your fear and discomfort might be.
Folks dimly sense the world is a cruel place, in which their desires and needs are unmet. This despite what they are told to believe are their best efforts to improve their situation. Such efforts as Fox once indicated, when complimenting the work ethic of Cheeto Jesus, “He watches all the shows!” Their only understanding comes from a steady diet of ‘bootstraps’ propaganda and conspiracy stories which advise them it’s not their fault. This an extremely pleasing answer and a real time and energy saver too. They do not look up, or examine the policy decisions of those they have placed in power which have made them Walmart waddlers, teetering on the verge of penury. Always, as instructed, they direct their blame at the convenient ‘other’ du jour. Deliberate ignorance and self-deception, especially if it comes with the comfort of herd identity and, don’t forget, cool hats, makes the world a brighter place. In the same sense that a grease fire in the kitchen, really improves the lighting… at least temporarily.
In a world where hypocrisy is unnoticed, if not admired, shame no longer operative as a bar to misbehavior and deliberate ignorance is considered evidence of a virtuous commitment, a free society cannot rely on social norms to restore rational balance.
If you can’t fix stupid, and evidence, logic and mockery are unavailing; That leaves law and force. Sadly, that never ends well, in spite of our American belief in quick violent solutions to complex problems. Though, I admit, in the short run, shooting the deliberately ignorant is satisfying. One can always rationalize it as ‘educational.” Or, as Voltaire put it, “Pour encourage les autres.” From Candide:
They arrived at Portsmouth. The coast was lined with crowds of people, whose eyes were fixed on a fine man kneeling, with his eyes bandaged, on board one of the men of war in the harbour. Four soldiers stood opposite to this man; each of them fired three balls at his head, with all the calmness in the world; and the whole assembly went away very well satisfied.
“What is all this?” said Candide; “and what demon is it that exercises his empire in this country?”
He then asked who was that fine man who had been killed with so much ceremony. They answered, he was an Admiral.
“And why kill this Admiral?”
“It is because he did not kill a sufficient number of men himself. He gave battle to a French Admiral; and it has been proved that he was not near enough to him.”
“But,” replied Candide, “the French Admiral was as far from the English Admiral.”
“There is no doubt of it; but in this country it is found good, from time to time, to kill one Admiral to encourage the others.”
BTW: as you know anti-intellectualism, to give it a fancy name, is as American as apple-pie, racism and misogyny. We’ve even studied it!
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. Arthur C Clarke
“If a nation expects to ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Thomas Jefferson… (who then broke into “Somewhere over the Rainbow” while fondling Sally Hemmings
The Shrinks weigh in:
“The difference between willful ignorance and true self-deception is subtle, but important. Willful ignorance tends to be more adaptive than self-deception. Willful ignorance is a cognitive strategy that people adopt to promote their emotional well-being, whereas self-deception is less controllable and more likely to be detrimental. Although willful ignorance and self-deception sometimes help individuals to avoid unpleasant facts, in the long run, it is usually better to confront reality than to avoid or deny it.”(Really? That seems tiring.)
“Studies have demonstrated that leaders who make bad decisions with harmful outcomes — but are willfully ignorant about those decisions — are usually punished less than straight-up dictators. Other researchers have pegged deliberate ignorance as an emotion regulation and regret avoidance device, a way to avoid liability while also driving performance.
In short: Self-deception basically works the same way deceiving others does. The person avoids critical information so they don’t know the whole truth; biases aren’t quite self-deception, but self-deception does involve a bias in what information you accept. In a 2011 paper in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, researchers argue that self-deception may have an evolutionary purpose in a blatantly depressing way: We self-deceive, they say, because it trains us to be better liars. “In the struggle to accrue resources, a strategy that has emerged over evolutionary time is deception,” the researchers write. “Self-deception may be an important tool in this co-evolutionary struggle, by allowing deceivers to circumvent detection efforts.” In other words, the more we convince ourselves of little lies, the less likely we are to demonstrate the nervousness and idiosyncratic tendencies that come with lying to other people, allowing us to become powerful, even if precariously so. Which, while that is likely true, is sort of a bummer.
“the strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’” Isaac Asimov
Check out Asimov from 1980…Hmmm, what happened that year?? :
https://aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ASIMOV_1980_Cult_of_Ignorance.pdf"
No it hasn't. At least not in a way any of us here can dispute. Let's say for the sake of argument that the vaccine is 100% effective. Does that now mean I ought to take it? You've left out any argument that we ought to take things that are 100% effective at doing what they claim to do. Fact's don't simply result in moral oughts (though see @Srap Tasmaner's rather clever way of achieving this in the other coronavirus thread).
Quoting Hanover
I see no evidence of that. I've provided more citations from properly qualified experts than any other poster and most contrary responses have been half-arsed clichés of reactionary defensiveness or outright spittle-flecked invective. How is that representative of a community in search of truth?
Quoting Hanover
Have you read the articles of association for the pharmaceutical companies? Their objective is no less black and white, in fact far more so. They make money for their shareholders. In fact it's a contractual requirement that they make money for their shareholders. a CEO could quite rightfully be sacked if he pursued any other objective. That may be by making a vaccine that works so well everyone wants it, or it may be by lobbying governments so hard they make the vaccine mandatory and everyone gets it regardless. The articles are not specific as to how the money is made (beyond it being legal).
We're in the sad state unfortunately, where a dollar spent on lobbying has a higher return than a dollar spent on R&D. At least a politician has to transparently convince people in order to remain in power, a corporation can earn it's profit without the public having a clue how.
I think this is irrelevant, since none of us here are experts qualified to judge the merits of whatever significant controversies over the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines might be going on in the virological, immunological and epidemiological domains.
Since taking a covid vaccine is not mandatory, the only argument, assuming that the vaccines are effective and safe enough to provide the only foreseeable way out of. or at least the only practicable way of ameliorating, this dire situation we find ourselves in, is the usual moral one that every member of the community ought to do their bit in contributing towards the most thorough implementation of the strategy designed to that end, that has been adopted by our governments under the advice representing expert consensus.
We have to assume that the strategy does represent expert consensus, because we have no way of judging whether it does beyond the fact that it is the official line. If it doesn't represent expert consensus then our experts are failing us and we are being deceived, but we would have no way of determining if that were the case.
If the pharmaceutical companies are predominately motivated by profit, that would nonetheless be irrelevant to the question as to whether the vaccines are safe and effective and whether mass vaccination is the only or at least the best strategy available to us.
Quoting James Riley
:rofl:
I'm not following your argument at all here. None of us are experts sufficiently to judge the various facts of the case, yes? I'm with you so far. You then jump to saying that in such cases we're morally obliged to follow government policy? I don't see the link.
If we're faced with a situation where we cannot personally judge the rightness or wrongness of expert opinion, the surely it comes down to
a) a matter of whom we choose to trust, and
b) a matter of having sufficiently good grounds for our choices (ie at least some experts are supporting us)
I don't see why the answer to (a) morally ought to be the government, and I don't see why (b) gets discarded in favour of insisting that everyone have exactly the same answer.
Quoting Janus
Really, how so? Surely it speaks quite strongly to the question at (a). Does the fact that a profit-making enterprise are making an enormous profit out of a strategy not factor into that question at all? If not, then what factors do you think ought to factor into that question? To simplify - at what point in time do we stop trusting our government/media? Is there some threshold of trustworthiness they've yet to cross but which, for you, would change your strategy?
This is not the hypothesis I was raising, though. The idea was rather that reason could be fully determined by reason herself, by prior thoughts, goals and collected data, not by non-rational physical events.
The moment you turn paranoid.
I know this argument. It's the "I have a right to make bad decisions" argument. People are literally willing to lay down their lives for this right. I'm not real sure why it's so important for people and sort of wish they'd find another cause to fight for, like maybe feeding the hungry or helping sick kids or something.
But to your question as to how your bad decisions affect me, they cause a waste of hospital space, a shutting down of the economy, and they result in greater spread of the disease. Quoting Isaac
Yeah, I don't agree with this. The overwhelming evidence is that the vaccine greatly reduced infections prior to the delta variant and it greatly reduces hospitalizations and serious illness with the delta. The great fears of vaccine complications has never been realized. Your arguments, at least when I was momentarily engaged, were general statistical objections that could be asserted against any medication. You've also argued that I am stuck in a bubble that I cannot get out of because I choose to heroically defend my peer group because loyalty to group is apparently my chief psychological driver.Quoting Isaac
This is the hallmark of conspiratorial thinking. We look around and find those we distrust and we concoct a crime they committed without any evidence a crime was actually committed and we stand in wonder how anyone would be so gullible as to believe those scoundrels wouldn't do exactly as we suspect they did even though we have no evidence.
I'd suggest that we start looking for motives for why a crime was committed after we actually have evidence a crime was committed. Otherwise, we end up accusing people of doing things that never happened.. That I don't trust politicians doesn't mean I get to accuse them of stealing from the coffers without evidence they have stolen, and I'm not naive to argue they haven't stolen when there is no evidence of theft. Of course, if I notice money is stolen, I should probably look to those with motivations and inclinations to steal if I want to find out who has stolen.
So, as I sit here, I have zero evidence that vaccines are useless and have been imposed upon the public to extract money from a fearful population. In fact, all the evidence is otherwise. For that reason, I don't need to identify all the bad people nearby and accuse them of falsifying vaccine data, largely because I have no such data.
On the other hand, I do in fact have significant evidence that people are spreading unfounded fears and mistruths about the vaccines. I therefore should at this point try to determine who might have motivation and inclination to engage in such conduct and figure out who they are.
But anyway, you don't have to convince me that there are bad people doing bad things. The prisons are filled with them and I trust we haven't rounded them all up. I do need to know a bad thing has actually happened before I accuse someone of something though.
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/civil-liberties-and-vaccine-mandates-heres-our-take/
What may have been a decent argument, an opportunity to further the reasoning behind taking a vaccine, quickly becomes a justification for the government to assert its power and mandate people taking them.
https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/civil-liberties-and-vaccine-mandates-heres-our-take/
Novelist Salmon Rushdie would demote the ACLU to what he calls the “But Brigade”. Out of one side of the mouth they champion your rights while out of the other they nullify them. We either have “the fundamental right to bodily integrity and to make our own health decisions”, or we do not. To the ACLU, we do not.
In this authoritarian fantasy each of us are a risk, a latent vector of danger, a potential Typhoid Mary in some fear-ridden, hypothetical future. Whether we come into contact with the disease or not, whether we are infected or not, it is possible we will be. And because such a scenario is possible, it is further possible we will spread it to granny and [insert at-risk group here].
This is a sort of mealy-mouhed, authoritarian racket, of course. Even if you never come near to becoming infected with the disease, and thus never come near to infecting anyone, let alone the at-risk group, sophists have long since absolved themselves from the evil involved in trading the ACLU’s and the government’s will for your own. When so-called civil liberties groups bend the knee to state power, it’s basically over.
That is the "reasoning" of a child. Either we have a right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, or we do not. When you develop the ability to understand nuance and think analytically, you will understand.
And I'm no fan of the ACLU and their failure to champion power to the people via the 2nd Amendment (They think it's a "collective" right instead of an individual right. I've explained to them, legally, the error in their analysis, but, deaf ears. Nevertheless, I digress.). But they are protecting the rights of the infirm to not be infected by some filthy disease that you *will* spread if people like you have you way (read up on Delta and other variants that would not exist if not for people like you). It's not like you or anyone like you has the power to avoid infection or spread, unless you crawl in a hole (see below).
Quoting NOS4A2
It does not take a sophist to place the burden of proof upon you in that regard. Further, if you are sure that will never happen then you don't have to fear gubmn't making you vax. You will be isolated and no one will be the wiser. Just make sure you don't come out into society with the rest of us. Simple, really.
... mostly for the virus? :)
I'm not saying we are morally obliged to follow government policy in view of our ignorance; I'm saying we are epistemically obliged to follow it since as far as we know it follows the expert consensus, which is the only guide we, in view of our lack of expert knowledge, have to rely upon.The moral argument is that in an emergency everyone should do their bit to implement the chosen strategy designed to combat the threat. In the present situation getting vaccinated would be playing your part, and you should do it unless you have a good reason not to, as far as I can tell. Do you have a good reason not to be vaccinated?
Quoting Isaac
The vaccines are either safe and effective or they are not. The expert advice is that they are safe and effective, and that is the only information we non-experts have to judge by. So until and unless evidence to the contrary arises we should assume, out of epistemic modesty, that the vaccines are safe and effective. I can't see how the fact that the pharmaceutical companies might be making an obscene profit out of their safe and effective product has any bearing on the question of the safety and effectiveness of their product.
OK, perhaps I have misunderstood you: I had thought you were claiming that the belief in the freely determining capacity of reason is compatible with the "hard determinist" dictum that all events, including thoughts and decisions, are wholly and inexorably determined by antecedent physical events.
It’s no surprise you’d bring up the fatuous “fire in a crowded theater” cliché, used as it was to justify jailing a man for speaking out against the draft. Anyone with “the ability to understand nuance and think analytically” knows the phrase is meaningless, not legally binding, and the underlying case was overturned back in ‘69.
If you don’t believe in the fundamental right to bodily autonomy just say it. Tell everyone, “I want to trade your will with my own”. Let them know that you and the government should decide what to put in their body. You’ll feel better when you let it out: “I want to exclude you from society because you refuse to do what I want you to”. Honesty would at least dissolve the cloud of pretence that follows you.
Anyone with a modicum of analytic and critical thinking skills, and an understanding of nuance, knows that an analogy, by definition, is not the thing itself. It is no argument to attack it as such. Rather, it is incumbent upon those who would attack it (you, in this case) to draw a distinction with a *relevant* difference. You have entirely failed in this regard.
Quoting NOS4A2
I do, but like all rights, it is not absolute. Only a child (or a conservative) who sees the world in black and white, either-or, two-valued and illogically dualistic, would think that there is no nuance.
Quoting NOS4A2
I want to trade your will to spread your nasty, filthy germs with my will to not let you. How's that?
Quoting NOS4A2
I hereby let them know that me and my government should decide what you get to exhale into my body whilst out in public. How's that?
Quoting NOS4A2
I want to exclude you from society because you refuse to respect the bodily integrity of others by spreading your filth, your pollution, your poison all over everyone else.
You are right! I feel much better! Distance, mask, wash, vax, or stay at home and hide under your bed until this is over. Those are your choices. Otherwise, I'm all for rounding you up, putting you on trains, and hauling you off to the camps where work will set you free. Maybe we'll get a branding iron and put a big "T" on your forehead, like the scarlet letter! Belay my last: I'm sure you've already branded your forehead with a big MAGA.
Vaccination mandates are not new. What's the problem with adding another disease to the list of mandated vaccines? Do you think it's OK that vaccinations be mandated for children, because they need to be told what to do, but once they grow up to legal age they should be allowed to decide for themselves? Or do you think that parents ought to decide whether their children will get vaccinated? Do you think it's not right to keep unvaccinated children out of private or public schools, as a pressure tactic on the parents to encourage vaccination?
Since you're all making exactly the same argument, I'll reply to you all here and save time.
1. People take risks with their lives all the time for all sorts of trivial reasons (hence my list of preferences, and example of skydiving). My risk of dying from Covid even if unvaccinated is extremely small (1 in several thousand), there's no dispute about this, experts all agree here. As such it is completely unremarkable, on a personal level, that I might choose to remain unvaccinated and take that risk for entirely trivial reasons (preferring not to take prophylactic medicine, preferring not to support the pharmaceutical industry are just two examples). I don't need to justify those preferences any more than a skydiver needs to justify his enjoyment of free-fall. To argue against this position you'd need to show either;
a) the risk of me dying from covid is not as small as all the experts say it is, or b) people do not normally take such small risks for trivial preferences. Otherwise my taking this small risk for my own trivial preferences is perfectly unremarkable.
2. People also take small risks with other people's health for their own trivial preferences or to ensure long-term goals which may be non-trivial such a political preferences. That the evidence for reduction in transmission is thin and that there are serious problems with vaccine distribution are not fringe ideas, they are positions taken by institutions like the WHO and the JCVI. That my risk of infecting another despite taking the advised non-pharmaceutical measures is small is again not even in dispute, it is standard opinion among experts. My taking this small risk out of a personal preference for a longer term societal goal, is again, unremarkable and within the range of normal behaviour.
3. People knowingly acting in a way that puts their health services under strain is a problem for which lack of vaccination among the otherwise healthy is dwarfed by other lifestyle choices. As with the other issues above, it is normal only for a person to limit their imposition to below an acceptable threshold, it is not normal to require a person to limit their imposition until it cannot be any further limited. It is often repeated that vaccines reduce my risk of getting ill, but this alone is insufficient argument. Many actions reduce the risk of harm to others and of needing hospital treatment. We are not normally required to continue taking these action until the risk has been reduced to zero, only that it has been reduced to below an acceptable threshold. Again, the evidence that my chances (even unvaccinated) of needing a hospital bed, or infecting another person (with proper hygiene precautions) are very small is not even in question, it is the consensus among experts.
Your arguments all suffer from a common theme of error. You assume a single purpose (minimise chances of getting covid) and so any course of action which has a lower probability of achieving that end is considered irrational. But that is simply not how decision-making works. We have multiple goals, only one of which is not getting covid (only one of which is even staying alive). It's completely normal to take a higher risk option in one of our goals in order to reduce risk in another (and no, I'm not talking about 'risk of death', that would just be one of our goals - risk here refers to 'risk of failure').
It's normal, rational behaviour to balance the risks from a range of strategies toward one goal with the risks from a range of strategies toward another. It's perfectly normal (and indeed healthy) for a society to have within it it a range of people whose risk balancing strategies are different because it hedges overall risk better than having a single risk balancing strategy. Societies, like people, have multiple goals and will balance the risks by adopting perhaps a slightly more risky strategy toward one goal in order to reduce the risk of another. Again, the fact that a range of risk balancing strategies is better than a single one is not even in question, it's the standard opinion of risk management experts. Public policy is, however, required to be simple and decisive. The existence of a public policy on favour of one risk balancing strategy is not indicative of a consensus that it is either the only, nor even the best, risk balancing strategy, it is reflective of the fact that public policy is blunt and has to be interpretable by the lowest common denominator.
Since I've said all this before and it's just circled back to the same misconceptions (plus another dose of the usual jeering from the crowd and aspersions on my character), I'm going to stop there.
Fixed. There is no reason to confine causality to certain "physical" events and not others. This is the essence of compatibilism. Reason is a type of cause.
That you don't have to justify your decision is obvious. There are no mandates. Humor me though and provide your justification. Do you obtain the thrill of the skydiver by not taking the vaccine? Do you not take part in prophylactic medicine in all instances and do you avoid the pharmaceutical industry in all other contexts? I understand you're not required to be logically consistent, and you can do whatever you want whenever you want, but I'll assume you wish to be rational and consistent.
If your position is though that you have the right to be irrational and today is the day you wish to stand on that ground and be irrational and inconsistent, then have it, but, like I said, I think there are better things to fight for than the right to piss into the wind.
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Untied States Parachute Association
Quoting Isaac
So about two orders of magnitude greater than the risk associated with skydiving, an example I assume will not be brought up again.
:up:
Well said.
Assuming that people should be able to make their own health decisions, should be able to decide what they don’t want to inject into their body, the problem with vaccine mandates is that it forces or coerces people into putting biological agents into their body that they otherwise might not want to. I think parents ought to decide how to protect their children when it comes to vaccination. I don’t think the government should.
None of which can be addressed by an intervention that takes a total of about half an hour of your life, none of your money, and with no other changes to your lifestyle. This whole section (3) leaves out cost. Quitting smoking, quitting drinking, eating healthier and exercising are all lifelong pursuits; the first two, definitely, and the third probably, are monetarily cheaper than not doing so, but they are also notoriously difficult and involve broader changes in lifestyle, not the least of which is changes in how you socialize.
But the risks associated with these behaviors are high, so determined individuals bear high costs to change their behavior. Your risk of serious illness if unvaccinated is low-ish. It can be reduced a certain amount by an intervention that is very close to zero-cost. That suggests that the ratio of reduced risk to cost is going to be awfully high. Compare to someone who changes their diet: reduced risk of cardiovascular or metabolic disease at a cost of never again eating food you enjoy, that you grew up with, and that socializing is often organized around. People do make that change. Is their benefit-to-cost ratio about the same as yours would be? Orders of magnitude greater? Or smaller?
Most people here see getting the shot as doing almost nothing, practically zero-cost. Even small marginal benefit is a good bet for close to zero cost.
You see getting vaccinated as somewhat high cost: it goes against several of your principles. You could just stand on that, and say, "I will not under any circumstances consent to getting vaccinated, no matter the benefit to me or anyone else." But instead you say
Quoting Isaac
Are these reasons trivial to you? Evidently they raise your cost of getting vaccinated substantially.
Why do you create this exception when it comes to vaccines? Must the parents put their children in car seats, allow them transfusions when needed, or let them play with firearms? Why is there a line drawn at vaccines, but you allow the oppressive hand of government to intervene in other instances?
This argument again. Sure, you have the right to bang your head against the wall until you pass out, and in a perfectly constructed libertarian world you could do that sunrise to sunset, but why do you want to do that?
Let us suppose the government one day grows tired of people banging their heads into walls and they illegalize it, other than the sacred right to being able to make really bad decisions being violated, how is society now worse off? I'm just trying to understand why a policy maker who doesn't buy into your view that the right to make stupid decisions is an inalienable right would have a problem stopping head banging if he could. Are we so committed to logical consistency in policy regardless of outcome that we will preserve that consistency damn the torpedoes, even when we are all in agreement that we're only protecting stupid behavior?
Quoting NOS4A2
Is there any case where you would change your position?
For instance, I read some time ago that Covid is, quite literally, nothing compared to what could happen with other unrelated viruses should they: 1. make the leap from the animal to man; 2. be airborne; and 3. be easily transmissible. The worst case scenario being a pandemic that wipes out 70 or 80% of the world's human population in a matter of months.
If there was a biological agent, free and easily injectable into the human body that would stop this in it's tracks if everyone took it, thus preventing variants and pass-throughs, and if the physical down-sides were no worse than the Covid vaccine, would you stick to your guns?
(If I recall correctly, the hypothetical is actually probable if human population continues to increase and if there were no countervailing medical rescues. Apparently it happens in nature all the time when a species gets beyond carrying capacity.)
If you would stick to your guns, fine. But if not, can you articulate where and when the line should be drawn? Or are you just saying "This isn't it. We aren't there yet"?
I still say your whole approach to this conversation is screwy.
The expectation on our side is that you provide your reasons and explain how you justify your decision; you don't have to do that if you don't want to, there's no gun to your head.
But you keep offering a substitute: comparing what one of us says about your decision to what the faceless public doesn't say about other decisions made by other people.
Suppose my roommate and I go to the grocery store. I grab a half-gallon of milk, and he says, "Why don't you get a gallon, it's cheaper that way?" Then I say, "Well, everybody seems to think getting cable-tv is just fine, when there are cheaper alternatives." "Dude, you talked me into cord-cutting like two years go, what ... ?" "But lots of people still get cable." "What does that have to do with the milk in your hand?"
Can you really not see how weird this is, @Isaac?
:100:
Maybe it's impossible for you to understand, but this isn't simply an individual issue.
Also, the fatality rate of COVID isn't the whole picture. Plenty of people get extremely ill, take up hospital beds and ventilators, and have lasting symptoms for weeks or months later, even if they don't ultimately die. It's also more likely to spread in unvaccinated populations, as we're seeing all over the world, and hence mutate into different variants -- which effects everyone. These are factors you, and other anti-vaxxers, want to continually ignore.
We're living in a pandemic. The vaccines have been shown to be effective and safe against COVID and help prevent the spread. Don't like these facts? Take it up with the CDC and WHO -- I'm sure they'll be interested in your assessment.
But given these facts, the choice is clear as day: everyone should get vaccinated. Same with the polio vaccine. The difference? No anti-vaxxer movement back then, of which you're an unfortunate member. There was also much more trust in science and medicine, which doesn't exist for anything that is engineered to be politicized.
Lastly, your examples of skydiving is embarrassing.
As soon as you (or your children) enter society, where individual decisions effects others, things change. It's not longer simply about you and your kids. We live in a society.
Things change with traffic lights too. It's no longer an individual decision about whether you've decided you want to follow these rules or not. Maybe your "belief system" tells you that traffic laws are unjust -- doesn't matter.
Vaccines, incidentally, have been mandatory in schools for years, and rightly so.
The question you perpetually struggle with is legitimacy of authority. You struggle with it because you fundamentally distrust governments, as you're a follower of anti-socialist, libertarian bullshit from the Cold War era. But the real issue is legitimacy, not source. In this case, the government (which you want to assume is always wrong and over-reaching) is employing its power legitimately -- if they were to impose mandates on vaccines, which hasn't even happened yet on a national level.
So what you're questioning is the legitimacy. The legitimacy is based on the facts of science and medicine, and on expert consensus. You're in no position to dispute that. If you go with a minority view or a conspiracy theory, that's your business. But for those of us living in the real world, where the spread of the virus effects all of us, mandates are legitimate -- and those who choose not to take them should simply remove themselves from civil society, the same way those who don't agree with traffic laws should as well. If you don't want to abide by the rules we've all created to ensure public health and safety, then find a place where you don't have to deal with others.
You have a right to your beliefs, but no right to harm others.
We don’t need to pretend that mandating vaccination is somehow equivalent to stopping people from banging their heads against a brick wall to maintain that you should not force others to inject or ingest biological agents they do not want to. Perhaps you can argue why a government official should be given the power to make your medical decisions for you.
The fact that the policy maker doesn’t buy into my view doesn’t afford him any right to inject things into my body against my wishes, anymore than a policy maker who doesn’t buy into your view can deny you the right to inject all the vaccines you want. We can’t just surrender that power because, for the time being, it only affects people we disagree with.
Sure we can. In our version of "free-market capitalism" we make calculations of acceptable losses all the time. Since there will be losses, acceptable or not, the smart thing to do would be to distribute those losses only among those who disagree, like you, Isaac and whatever that new kid's name is. Unfortunately, we can't parse the losses in that fashion because we don't know who the vax will kill or harm. So the next best option is to deprive you of your right to bodily integrity and make you take the vax along with everyone else; simply hoping that you draw the unlucky card. Hell, we do it with women all the time. We ask them to surrender their power because, for the time being, it only affects them. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Pay up. Why should you guys be any different?
Yes, the government doesn’t own anyone’s body. The legitimacy of government authority over someone’s body has never been justified. It’s as simple as that.
LOL! Tell that to the guy's who got drafted shot and killed in Vietnam. Somewhere on this board there was an explanation of land ownership and the sovereign. It's kind of like that. Kind of like Socrates and that state that created him. In the end, might makes right and you don't own your own body if your rights to the sanctity of it are violated without recourse. Hell, that meth head across the street could own your body if he played his cards right. And my right to bodily integrity is threatened by anti-vaxers running around spreading their filthy disease. Happens all the time. Get used to it.
No one has once claimed that. The fact that you have to resort to straw men gives away the bankruptcy of your position.
Quoting NOS4A2
There are laws made about what we can and cannot do with our bodies all the time. There are thousands of examples.
Your rights stop when you effect others with your body. It's as simple as that. Yes, we do live in a society -- sorry to inform remind of that. We know you're not a fan.
And, again, vaccines have been mandated in schools for decades. According to you, this is illegitimate. Thankfully people like you aren't in charge of public health.
:up:
"His right to swing his Covid ends where my nose begins." Actually, that's battery. The definition of "assault" would actually have his right to swing his Covid end well before my nose begins. If I am placed in reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm in the face of his apparent ability to carry it out, he has assaulted me. I think, in light of the Delta variant and pass throughs and other new variants and whatnot, it is reasonable for me to fear his filthy breath.
According to irrational "libertarians" like this guy, the government is always the problem. Remember, that's the mantra. Socialism bad, government bad. Free markets = necessary and good, for "freedom," of course. "Free to choose," etc.
It's a completely inconsistent, incoherent view. People are drawn to it because it's simple, gives them a principle in which you judge all matters, slogans to repeat, etc. But it has no application in the real world whatsoever.
Going to school or work sick effects other people. Coughing and touching things other people touch effects other people. This is why we have laws that employees in restraurants must wash their hands after they use the bathroom. This is why we have vaccine mandates in schools, and have for years. This is why we have traffic laws. This is why you can't go into a supermarket and start shooting people. We live in a society.
:up: Yep. And in a true free-market, capitalist system, they would have to pay for their externalized costs. But no. They socialize their costs onto the backs of everyone else.
If you don’t own anyone’s body, what gives you the right to force vaccines upon them, make medical decisions for them, or otherwise attempt to assert your will with theirs? Nothing.
The problem is you don’t know whether I’m affecting people or not. You are just proposing to deny my bodily autonomy based on your fear-ridden and morally bankrupt precognition.
Straw man.
Quoting NOS4A2
If you live in society, you are. We do know. Which is why we mandate vaccines in schools and many workplaces.
Yours is an idiotic and inconsistent view. But I expect nothing else from you.
It’s my argument, not a breakdown of yours. So maybe you can dispute it.
You don’t know. You’re ignorant. You’re scared. Fear and ignorance is the premise you use to justify denying bodily autonomy.
It's a straw man. Not an argument.
If you want to make choices that harm no one else, fine. Do what you want. But, again, sorry to remind you, but we live in a society.
Quoting NOS4A2
We do know, because we know how viruses spread.
Fear and ignorance is on your side -- fear of, and ignorance of, vaccines. That's all this boils down to: sheer ignorance on your part. Like with almost everything you discuss.
(1) Do we go with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and the corresponding recommendations?
Or do we go with:
(2) The minority of experts that say the opposite?
Classic choice, and very revealing.
Those who choose (2), who are not experts, are almost always doing so for religious or political reasons. Climate change, tobacco, evolution, vaccines, etc. (2) in these cases are extremely small, but have a large following -- for understood reasons.
It’s not a straw man. It’s just an argument you cannot address.
“We live in a society”. And? Such a fact is meaningless when it comes to imposing your will on others. That fact of being in a majority does not justify you imposing your will on a minority.
Straw man. I fear vaccine mandates, hence why I am arguing against “vaccine mandates”, which is obvious by what I wrote. Not only fear, not only ignorance, but lies as well.
You're right that we have a right to bodily autonomy; that sets the bar for state interference high, but not infinitely high. The US Supreme Court has already ruled once before that pandemics clear that high bar.
We always have to balance the interests of the individual against the interests of society at large; there is no blanket expectation that one will always trump the other. It depends on the right that will be infringed, to what degree it will be infringed, the seriousness of the state's interest, and the tailoring of state action to further the interest of society as a whole while minimizing the infringement of the rights of individuals. At least in the US, I believe that's how it's supposed to work.
For a hard determinist there are no non-physical events, and that's why it is logically incompatible with any notion of self-actuated freedom. The other point here is that reason (apart from deductive logic where conclusions follow inexorably from premises) is not understood to be strictly determined or determining.
I’m not arguing imposing— that’s your argument, remember?
Quoting NOS4A2
That’s called democracy. But regardless, I absolutely do have that right when it effects me. Which is why we vaccinate kids for school, which is why we ban smoking indoors.
If you want to live with the delusion that this affects no one else, that’s your business.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, we know. So you’ve been blathering against school vaccine requirements for years, I suppose.
What a pathetic cause.
No— the government is always bad and individuals are all that exist. So says the Church of Rand and its followers.
Except when it’s something they approve of, of course.
:clap:
President Joe Biden to the unvaccinated: "We've been patient, but our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us."
Jeff Tiedrich: "Joe Biden has had just about enough of your shit."
Pam Kling: "Along with 81 million of us."
Me: "I have to have a passport to travel? Wah, wah, wah, wah! You meanies! Wah, wah, wah!"
That is at least a practical view. But I must reject it. Society is composed of individuals. The interests of the individual is the interest of society at large.
My concern is that no one, including the state, can know what “the interest of society” is. If we are to mean the interest of every individual involved, then there is a vast variety of sometimes common and sometimes competing interests. If we are to mean the common interest of some group, then that is not the interest of society.
That’s what we’re dealing with here: the interest of some group, in this case the interest of the state and those who seek to gain from the exercise of state power. There is no collective “we” making these decisions, willing to sacrifice our own and our neighbor’s autonomy, willing to deny medical privacy, willing to endorse mass discrimination, all to appease our subjective, consequentialist desires.
The ends do not justify the means, in this case.
The body is composed of cells.
First you say:
Quoting NOS4A2
Then you say:
Quoting NOS4A2
Which is it? First you say the interest of the individual is the interest of society, then you say no one can know what the interest of society is. Please clarify.
Quoting NOS4A2
The state is the representative of society at large. There is a collective "we" making these decisions, willing to sacrifice our own and our neighbor's autonomy, willing to deny medical privacy, willing to endorse mass discrimination, all to appease our subjective, consequentialist desires, all seeking to gain from the exercise of state power to protect the interests of the individual. We are trying to protect ourselves from an enemy common to each individual and to society at large.
I think the interest of society is invisible to you, because what you describe is no society at all, but the proverbial war of all against all.
I do not believe there is evidence that human beings, over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, have ever actually been so blinkered in their worldview. First it was kin, then tribe and village, and over time ever larger groups of people competing and cooperating ever more indirectly, but with at least one purpose in common: the continuation of this society we have made. It's not a trick someone played on us; it's what humans have always done.
If you want to oppose something you think of as The State -- go ahead and do that, let's hear the argument, but you'll have to oppose it with something better than an eternal battle royale. If such a condition were real, it would be a complete clusterfuck. But it's not real, never has been. We have never been that stupid.
:100:
Society’s interest is its own continuation…I must have missed the memo because there is no other way beyond sheer projection to verify such an interest. But no, I did not describe the proverbial war against all, or an eternal battle royal, only that some individuals are trying to impose their will on other individuals, which is closer to the spirit of war than any defense of fundamental rights.
Err, that's simply not true. Whether the future is fully predetermined has siltch to see with whether there exist "non-physical events" or not.
What you confuse with determinism is naïve materialism or "physicalism". But if everything is physical, then ideas are also physical, and the word "physical" loses its meaning. Or ideas are not physical and thus do not really exist, and so the idea of physicalism does not exist... So physicalism is either meaningless -- if it accepts ideas as physical -- or self-contradictory -- if it assumes ideas are not physical and thus inexistent.
Quite true; I found taking the shots fun, not unlike skydiving. :-)
Are you an anarchist? Any form of government necessarily involves some group of people imposing their will on others (and each other).
I can't speak on anything like "natural rights" (as something of a physicalist, I'm skeptical of such supernatural notions), but this kind of complete self-autonomy you appear to be advocating seems unworkable in practice. A functioning society requires that there are some things we can't do and other things we have to do.
I’m not one for the supernatural either. And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. It’s a simple moral decision.
Because to you that would make our society unjust, and you don't want our society to be unjust. You're one of us; you just express it as if you're not.
Sure, and there are people who argue that the moral thing to do is to take reasonable steps to reduce the risk of spreading a dangerous disease, and that requiring people to be vaccinated against said disease is one such reasonable step. The moral "imperative" to protect the population-at-large is considered to have a greater priority than the moral "right" to choose one's own medical treatment.
It's the same kind of argument that people make in favour of or against abortion; a woman is said to have a right to choose her own medical treatment, and an embryo/foetus/unborn baby is said to have a right to be born, and we must weigh which right has the greater priority.
But my main point is that a self-professed "absolute bodily autonomy" which you seemed to be arguing for seems infeasible in practice. For there to be a functioning society there are things we can't do and things we must do. And for some cases I think that the practical considerations override any moral considerations, e.g. it is immoral to sentence an innocent man to prison, but the reality of human fallibility is that innocent men are sentenced to prison, and that's a necessary evil.
But this doesn't really answer @Michael's question. You're position is based upon a strict fidelity to the principle that the government lacks the legitimate power to dictate what individuals may do. That is anarchism. I'm sympathetic to the view that government power should be limited, but those limitations are going to necessarily be ad hoc and based upon societal needs and some exceptions will be difficult to justify on purely principled grounds.
Right, there are things we can't do and things we must do. And nowhere does it state that we have to mandate people to take a vaccine and deny them access to society if they do not. There is nothing unfeasible about it.
I don’t see how it is reasonable to discriminate against the unvaccinated, especially when natural immunity can offer better protection than some vaccines, and the vaccinated are not immune from spreading the disease. It seems more reasonable and justifiable to discriminate against those infected with the virus, the only people capable of spreading the disease.
Sure. But it's not about "have to"; your claim was that the State has no right, no authority to do such a thing. (Sorry, but the curiosity is killing me: what is this "it" that keeps not stating things somewhere?)
Quoting NOS4A2
And you may be right about all of this. Then why not just say this instead of suggesting (?) that government is always and only some group of people illegitimately imposing its will on others? Right here, you acknowledge that it's at least more reasonable -- but maybe still not reasonable enough for your tastes -- for the government to deprive the infected of their liberty.
Are you in fact okay with house arrest for the infected?
Quoting NOS4A2
Society has chosen. It tried to be nice. But:
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
True. We (society) have decided we want to continue. That is in our interest. We tried to ask nice. While it nowhere states we have to mandate people take the vaccine, we have made a simple moral decision to do so. We don't want war, but you are asking for it. You keep freeloading off of us like a welfare queen and you don't want to do your part. You have a peaceful option: pack your bags and leave. Quit availing yourself of society's benefits. It's a simple moral decision.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
And if so, how is the State to determine who is infected? Does your right to bodily autonomy, ahem, immunize you against being tested by an agent of the State? Or must I turn over my blood to the authorities upon demand?
If true, then I suppose we could offer a choice between vaccination and just injecting with Covid. Those who choose the latter could then quarantine for two weeks or whatever the time frame is to gain their natural immunity. The only problem there is, I think studies have shown that the antibodies don't last that long after natural infection.
You do know that it was never written anywhere that you could not drive drunk. Until it was written. And it was only written because some people thought it was their God-given right to drive drunk.
I'm not saying that it's "stated somewhere" (I don't know what you mean by this or why you keep bringing it up) that vaccine mandates are things we must do. I'm saying that for society to function there are things we can't do and things we must do, and so that for society to function we cannot have unrestricted self-autonomy. Unrestricted self-autonomy leads to anarchy. Are you an anarchist?
Quoting James Riley
It really is a curious argument.
Let's say that natural immunity grants a 90% protection and vaccines grant an 80% protection. Is that extra 10% protection worth having COVID in the first place? Obviously not if it kills you. And if it is worth it, then why? Because you're less likely to have COVID again? If having COVID is inevitable then I'd rather have it after being vaccinated than without being vaccinated — both because the symptoms will be less severe and because natural immunity plus vaccine immunity is surely better than natural immunity alone. But all-in-all I'd rather not ever have COVID, which is far more likely if I'm vaccinated.
I just don't see the sense in not being vaccinated.
:up:
I'm not sure which provides longer protection at this point either. I have heard natural immunity wears off sooner than vax, but I'm not sure. Then there is the issue of variants working around immunity. (variants that we might not have if everyone would have played ball.)
What do you say to this, @Isaac?
I looked, and when we were discussing Andrew Pollard's contention that "anyone who's still unvaccinated at some point will meet the virus. We don't have anything that will stop transmission", you never indicated how you would respond to the simple argument @Michael gives here, and that Paul Hunter presented at the same meeting: you will get infected; being vaccinated when you get infected substantially lessens the severity and duration of the ensuing illness, and therefore substantially lessens the risk of a poor outcome.
This argument alone should carry the day. If it does not, it must be because you perceive the cost of getting vaccinated -- which you can be certain you will incur -- as higher than your expected benefit, the sum of the possible outcomes weighted by their likelihood.
An equivalent analysis would be to subtract the cost, a fixed value, from each possible benefit, and then weight the net benefits by likelihood, factoring in the vaccine's effectiveness here; doing it this way gives you a clearer sense of the range from worst case to best case, and you can compare them to a similar range of worst case to best case for the option of not getting vaccinated. It's not hard to see that by getting vaccinated you will miss out on the very best case -- incurring no cost and having a very mild illness, a cold. The entire range of possible outcomes is shifted ("downward") by the fixed cost of the vaccination. The very worst case is even worse now, because of this additional cost. But the likelihoods associated with each outcome are also shifted, raising the likelihood of the better outcomes and reducing the likelihood of worse ones. The very worst vaccinated case is substantially less likely than the unvaccinated worst case. If you flip your axes and check what outcome is associated with each likelihood for the vaccinated and unvaccinated cases, you will find a uniform improvement in outcome on the vaccinated side. (I'm not sure what happens at the very bottom of the likelihood scale -- whether vaccinated-worst is a lower probability than anything on the unvaccinated scale, for instance, or how it compares to unvaccinated-best. For that I'd have to have actual data and do actual math. This is just a math-like or math-ish or math-adjacent argument.)
You need to familiarize yourself with the concepts. So-called "hard detreminism" is a physicalist view. Of course not all physicalists are hard determinists. For a hard determinist free will is an illusion, since all "mental" events including decisions, thoughts, beliefs and so on are really physical events, and if all events are wholly determined by antecendent events, then there is no room for any kind of causa sui actuality such as we intuitively understand reason and free will to be. By the way, I'm not saying I hold that view.
Sorry, now that I read back on it it isn’t clear. What I mean by it isn’t “stated somewhere” is that it isn’t a matter of what we “must” do. It’s a choice. Plenty of countries choose not have such mandates. It’s a matter of authoritarianism.
That sounds like a pretty loose definition of "authoritarianism." Any time authority is exercised when it does not have to be, that is an example of authoritarianism?
It's illegal to drive drunk. I suppose that is a matter of authoritarianism. Okay.
:meh:
I'm not talking specifically about vaccine mandates. I'm questioning this comment:
Any kind of government involves individuals imposing their will on other individuals. It's necessary for there to be a functioning society. Your apparent support of unrestricted self-autonomy leads to anarchy. Are you an anarchist? Or do you accept that — whether for moral reasons or for practical reasons — we must be forbidden from doing some things and required to do other things?
Whether or not vaccine mandates are one such requirement is a separate issue. Right now I just want to know the extent to which you will commit to this supposed "natural right" to self-autonomy.
Alright. Though I’m not the topic, I do not believe in “unrestricted self-autonomy” and am not a full-on anarchist. I would prefer to end someone’s autonomy the moment he attempts to end mine, for example.
Though I do speak of fundamental rights, I do not believe in natural rights. All rights are or ought to be afforded by human beings, not nature.
If so then it’s not sufficient to argue that one has a fundamental right to self-autonomy as a defence against restrictions against the unvaccinated as you accept that self-autonomy ought be restricted to some extent (whether for moral or for practical reasons). You need to argue that restrictions against the unvaccinated are a step too far. Why is it acceptable to restrict the sick (assuming you are against allowing people with Ebola for example to freely mingle with the public) but not the unvaccinated?
I accept that in principle the government and private individuals can restrict me from denying the freedom and rights of others. The unvaccinated do not deny others their rights and freedoms by virtue of them being unvaccinated. Restrictions against them are a step too far in that sense, and not only that, but unnecessary given that the vaccinated are protected from them.
The infected can spread the disease. Absent voluntary quarantine and isolation, I think more forceful measure would have to be taken and is justified. It’s a tough question. Typhoid Mary is a good ethical case study.
So goes the old, tired, long refuted Thatcher bullshit.
The coronavirus is a good example of exactly how individual “interests” are often completely contrary to the interests of society.
Notice how this simply cannot be seen by those so indoctrinated by neoliberal propaganda. Quite sad.
Is society not composed of individuals?
I’d love to hear what you think the “interests of society” are.
No where does WHAT state? The constitution?
No where does “it” state that people must obey traffic lights. I view this as against my individual rights and autonomy, and I shouldn’t be denied access to society if I don’t follow them.
What a stupid, stupid argument.
The state imposes and laws all the time. The only question is whether it’s legitimate. Decisions about vaccines are based on science and recommendations from the overwhelming medical consensus. It’s as commonsensical as traffic lights and hand washing laws.
The issue is simply that you don’t think it as legitimate as these other cases, and the reason you don’t think it is is because you’re fundamentally anti-science and anti-medicine. Otherwise it’s simply a matter of logic, based on simple values and goals we all share.
Stop being an imbecile and prolonging this pandemic with your Ayn Rand, quasi-libertarian bullshit.
The interest of the state is to protect the health and welfare of the citizens. Some times that means distance, mask, vax. Those "individuals" who don't want to play ball can stay home and off of society's streets and public places.
I am fully vaccinated and I listen to the advice of my doctor. How does that square with your little caricature?
Your obedience is to government officials, not “science”. Rather than working to falsify any theory, apply the scientific method, you merely work to perpetuate government edicts. It’s so servile and obsequious as to be laughable.
No, society is composed of atoms. Atoms are composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons…etc.
There are different concepts and analyses brought into play when dealing with individuals, groups, and systems.
True, you can argue that understanding chess is really a matter of studying atoms— but no one would pay the slightest attention to you, because it’s idiotic.
Quoting NOS4A2
One such interest is the interest of health and safety. Which anyone sane, and willing to participate in society, accepts.
Did you do that only after you worked to falsify any theory, and applied the scientific method to what your doctor said? Just curious.
Society is a collection of atoms? Wow.
Who says the interests of society is health and safety?
Right. Just like those who want to take a paintball into the supermarket and shoot everyone in there. Or those who want to smoke indoors.
Sorry—you’re welcome to smoke in your own space, not in mine.
Article 1, Section 8 and a metric shit-ton of common law and state constitutional and statutory law.
Lol. No, to the overwhelming medical consensus.
You listen to your doctor, but not doctor(s). Because you’re too blinded by anti-politics.
Repeat the prayer of your religion once again: government is the problem.
Once we accept that, the rest follows—and leads you this dangerous, contradictory nonsense.
Doctor isn’t government. Government is the problem, remember. Saint Reagan said so.
:lol:
That’s one interest of many. Who says it isn’t?
Nevermind. You’re right: the interests of society are death and destruction.
Saint Reagan didn’t say it, so it isn’t true.
That’s right; the “interests of society” are whatever Xtrix says they are.
And that is why governments are requiring people to be vaccinated; because vaccination reduces the risk of infection. We're not in a position where we can immediately know if someone is infected, and it is perhaps impractical and too burdensome to require that everyone take daily tests and show proof that the results are negative (and I believe that lateral flow tests have a quite high false negative rate). Requiring vaccinations is the most practical way to reduce the number of infected people spreading the disease.
Governments aren't doing this because they have a hard-on for telling people what to do. They're doing this because that's what the medical science recommends.
:up:
I think I read somewhere that it also takes a while after exposure to register on the test. If I get it from you and then take the test shortly thereafter, I may show clean. I'm not sure what the time frame is but it could lead to that case where a person is tested and allowed to do X but the horse is out of the barn. They are doing X and spreading disease. I'm not sure on the science of all this, but that was my understanding. It's not a good thing if little Johnny get's it from the bus driver, tests negative that morning, spends all day in class spreading crap, then tests positive the next morning. "Oh, we better close the school down! 50 kids have it! I wonder where it came from?"
Imagine struggling with “health and safety” as an interest. This is what modern “libertarianism” does, folks. Take a good look.
Yes, there is such a thing as the common good. Not having a virus spread around because a bunch of people think they know more than medical experts — that’s part of the common good.
American death toll on 9/11: 2,977
American death toll in Afghanistan war: 2,461
American death toll from COVID: 3,260
That last one is a two day average.
Sorry, but NOS is a medical expert, with years of experience with epidemics and infectious diseases and, more importantly, has a simple, handy-dandy principle on which to judge things — as articulated by Saint Reagan: government is not the solution, only the problem.
Case closed. The rest is your non-thinking obsequiousness to Big Government. Which is the problem.
Medical science also recommended the Tuskegee experiments, experimentation on Jews, slaves, deliberately infecting Guatemalans with syphillis, transplanting the testicles of young men into older ones, or radiated prisoners to see the effects of radiation, and on and on. I’m not sure the fact that some policy is recommended by medical science is a good enough reason to enact them, especially given that the the area of expertise for medical scientists is medical science, not ethics or political science.
It’s also practical to weld people into their homes or round up the infected and put them into concentration camps. It would be much easier and cost effective to round up the infected and gun them down where they stand. But to me, the practicality or success rate of any given policy isn’t a good enough reason to enforce it.
Anyways, if you are vaccinated, what is there to fear from the unvaccinated?
Imagine needing state officials to decide your health and safety. You will never leave the tit at this rate, forever unweaned.
I was under the impression there's conflicting data, and obviously views, on this. That vaccination reduces the severity and duration of the illness, is well-supported though. I would think that indirectly reduces transmission, but I'm no expert.
Being vaccinated doesn't make you immune. It's not 100% effective.
The larger issues would be burden one the healthcare system, and simple concern for your fellow citizens and the effect their illness or death will have on others. I mean, if your child's teacher gets sick and dies, it wasn't you, and it wasn't your child, but you and your child and that teacher's family and friends will all feel it.
CDC COVID-19 Study Shows mRNA Vaccines Reduce Risk of Infection by 91 Percent for Fully Vaccinated People
Yes, the vaccinated can spread the disease, and according to an Israeli study for example, have less protection than natural immunity. Maybe there should be natural immunity passports.
The whole “burden on the healthcare system” has so far been a canard. We’ve been hearing it from the beginning, but even when field hospitals were implemented to offset this, they had to stand down, most of them without treating a single covid patient.
If there are compelling ethical (or practical reasons) not to enact a medical policy then I agree that there is justification not to. Requiring vaccination doesn't seem to have such conflicts. Being vaccinated isn't like being infected with syphilis or being placed into concentration camps. Being vaccinated is good for the person being vaccinated, not just for the wider community, which is where it differs from the examples above which actively harm the subject. We've already established that the right to self-autonomy isn't unrestricted, so what about requiring vaccination is so bad that protecting the public health isn't worth the cost?
There is a lesser chance of me being infected if both you and I are vaccinated than if just I am vaccinated. I'm probably butchering statistics here, but if the vaccine is 90% effective and if I'm the only vaccinated person then there is a 10% chance of me catching COVID, but if everyone is vaccinated then there's a 1% chance (my numbers might be wrong, but I believe that the principle that I'm better protected if others are also vaccinated holds).
And there are people who for medical reasons should not be vaccinated. Me being vaccinated protects them, and as the cost of me being vaccinated is effectively nil, it would be unfair for me to put them at risk or for them to have to seclude themselves from society just so that I can refuse to be vaccinated as some matter of principle over self-autonomy.
Variants and passthroughs that arise due to the recalcitrance of the unvaccinated. Indeed, the variants that have arisen thus far are due to failures to isolate and mask (and now vax). And there could be some on the horizon that are worse, thanks to those who don't play ball.
If you cherry-pick, you invite those who disagree with you to do the same. If you believe you are countering a widely accepted narrative, I'm sure the temptation is even stronger.
It should be an empirical question. I'll only say that I remember hearing daily reports on the radio not just about infections and deaths, but remaining ICU beds in area hospitals. Those numbers were usually single digits.
That and trickle down is good.
Before Dennis Miller turned, he once opined something to the effect: Trickle down? If that's not fair notice that you are about to get pissed on, then I don't know what is." LOL!
So doctors and the overwhelming medical consensus become “state officials” now. Got it.
So you took a vaccine shot because your state official told you to? How sad.
Very good editorial in the NY Times, worth quoting at length.
[quote=NY Times] As Americans contemplate the prospect of a second winter trapped in the grip of Covid-19, remember that it didn’t need to be this way. Vaccines were developed in record time, and have proved to be both incredibly safe and stunningly effective. Nearly two-thirds of eligible Americans have accepted these facts and done their part by getting fully vaccinated.
Yet tens of millions more have not, allowing the more contagious Delta variant to sweep across the country, where it is now killing more than 1,500 people in the United States daily. Right now, the list of the very sick and the dead is made up almost entirely of the unvaccinated. But as long as the virus continues to spread widely, it can and will evolve in ways that put everyone at risk.
Faced with this avoidable catastrophe, President Biden is right to order tighter vaccine rules, which he did for roughly two-thirds of the nation’s work force on Thursday. “We’ve been patient,” Mr. Biden told vaccine holdouts. “But our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.”
The president moved to require all executive branch employees, federal contractors and millions of health care workers to be vaccinated. Workers at private businesses with 100 or more employees will have to either get vaccinated or take a weekly Covid test. Any business covered by the order must offer its employees paid time off to get their shots or recover from any side effects.
[...]
Yet vaccine resisters carry on about violations of their freedom, ignoring the fact that they don’t live in a bubble, and that their decision to stay unvaccinated infringes on everyone else’s freedom — the freedom to move around the country, the freedom to visit safely with friends and family, the freedom to stay alive.
The Supreme Court made this point more than a century ago, when it upheld a fine against a Massachusetts man who refused to get the smallpox vaccine. In a majority opinion that echoes powerfully today, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote, “Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”
Refusers’ hollow appeals to “freedom” are especially hard to take considering that Americans already accept countless restrictions in the name of safety: We are required to wear seatbelts, for example, and to get vaccinations to attend public school.
Speaking of school vaccination requirements, they’ve proven wildly effective. Thanks to vaccines, measles and the mumps were essentially eradicated in children, at least until vaccine opponents opened the door for them to return.
A small number of people have a legitimate reason to decline the vaccine — say, those with an allergy. Others, particularly racial minorities, are mistrustful because of their personal experiences with the health care system, or because the vaccines are relatively new. Still others have struggled to get time off work or have worried (mistakenly) about the cost.
Beyond these, it’s hard to understand any arguments against getting the shot. The vaccine made by Pfizer is now fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and the one by Moderna is expected to be shortly. [/quote]
It goes on, and worth a read. Says it all quite nicely, I think.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opinion/biden-covid-vaccine.html
"In an ideal world, vaccine requirements (or weekly testing) wouldn’t be necessary. Americans would see that the coronavirus has already killed more than 4.6 million people worldwide. They would understand that vaccines are the single best tool we have to protect lives and restore the economy. They would be racing to the nearest pharmacy and consider themselves fortunate to be living in one of the few nations in the world where that’s possible."
If only...
My tax money shouldn't be going to pay for the medical bills of those that could easily have avoided this by getting a shot.
:lol:
“Long research.”
:rofl:
:lol:
Why do they all sound the same?
Because you are stupid.
Because they did their own research. :rofl:
And you didn't.
Nope, I didn't. I hired experts. You couldn't carry the corn in their shit.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fifunny.co%2Fpicture%2Fnobody-is-doing-their-own-research-all-you-re-doing-V2PZMZpt8&psig=AOvVaw3wjUB7ms7RC-4RNOXlSvBb&ust=1631506383961000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAsQjRxqFwoTCIj-1obJ-PICFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
I bit my tongue for ages, knowing that if I told him what I really thought he would be deeply offended. Eventually it was too much and I had to speak my mind, When I told him he wasn't an expert, that he wasn't doing research but was indulging his fears and confirmation bias, that I was in agreement with mandatory vaccination if necessary on account of to many recalcitrants to allow us to reach the required vaccination targets and for certain professions, such as medical staff, teachers and so on, he told me I was just jealous of his superior scientific knowledge and ability to analyze scientific studies and he said I was a Nazi pure and simple. Now I am persona non grata, the friendship in ruins it seems..
There you go forming opinions without evidence; the mark of a true scientist!
Only those trained in the appropriate disciplines, with years of experience, have a hope of criticallly assessing whatever controversies there might be. Are you a virologist, immunologist or epidemiologist? If not, then you're not qualified to "consider opposing arguments". If you think you are you are deluding yourself.
Unless you are a researcher in one of those disciplines you are not doing real science. And jumping to conclusions is not real science either: I didn't say you were like my friend, I don't know you; I said you said all the same things, verbatim, that he said, If that makes you like him then I have good evidence that you are like him, but I didn't draw that conclusion.
On the other hand you drew several conclusions about me without any evidence to support them whatsoever, and that does seem to indicate the degree of evidence you require in order to form strong opinions.
Have you done any "real scientific research"? Yes or no?
Why do you believe questionable personalities without considering opposing arguments?
Why are scientists and medical professionals who don't agree with the "official" narrative blocked out of the equation?
Why do you think I'm like your friend? Did I say you are...
"just jealous of his superior scientific knowledge and ability to analyze scientific studies and he said I was a Nazi pure and simple"
?
I didn't consider that question to be a serious one. If I were a virologist, epidemiologist or immunologist don't you think I would have said so? And any other kind of scientific research would be irrelevant in this context. Have you done any real scientific research?
Quoting protonoia
What makes you think they are "blocked out of the equation". I have no doubt that within the scientific community there is a dominant consensus which they don't happen to agree with, but that doesn't stop them from arguing for their position within their community.
Being a non-expert, I follow the dominant consensus because I think we have good reason to think it is likely to be the most accurate, and hence the best guide. This is epistemic modesty; I don't pretend to be able to form my own independent opinion beyond what is the most plausible guide as to what to believe.
Quoting protonoia
I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you read closely. I didn't say you were like my friend, I said that he said exactly all the things you said. I didn't say or even suggest that you said, or even suggested, that I am "just jealous of (your) superior scientific knowledge and ability to analyze scientific studies" or that "I was a Nazi pure and simple". In fact I didn't say that you said all the things he said at all, I said that he said exactly all the things you said. He could have, and in fact has, said other things that you have not said.
Are we clear now?
Quoting protonoia
So there are effective alternative medications to a virus that doesn’t exist? Arguing for two conflicting conspiracies at the same time is a bold choice.
It’s interesting that the writer of this NY Times article seems to accept what I believe are most peoples’ reasons for not getting the vaccine and decries just one (appeals to freedom.).
The origin of of Covid-19 remains unknown to the greater population of the world. Regardless, biological warfare has a long history and is a very real and serious concern. Defence against biological agents is not a simple matter, requiring a concerted effort and a strongly unified community, with an impenetrable line of defence. We've seen this requirement. Rogue individuals such as yourself have no place in a society on the defence from this type of biological agent, and there is no other option but to "deny them access to society". In this situation there is some truth to George W. Bush's words "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists".
Prepare yourself, as far worse biological agents could be in store for us in the future, and this is but a drill. Do you have the moral strength, will power, determination, and courage, to do what it takes to defend your community from these agents of death, or will you reject your community's efforts and become an outcast? .
So you'd learn some humility and be in the company of your kind.
Quoting protonoia
Every swinging dick and tit at the CDC and all their affiliates. Oh, and my doctor!
From the WSJ.
Yeah. Being logical is so overrated.
Quoting Xtrix
One doctor that I know said this earlier this summer: we'll get shot just as we can get the annual flu shot. And history how pandemics have transformed sure would say that this could become the future.
None of that matters to me. I don’t care if the vaccine cures every disease in human history. If someone doesn’t want to put it in their body they shouldn’t be forced to do so, and for the same reasons that they shouldn’t be refused a vaccine—they are responsible for their own medical decisions. If they refuse the vaccine they accept that risk.
We’ve seen what happens when we give the state the power to make our medical decisions, to violate our medical privacy, to override the doctor/patient relationship, to enforce discriminatory social policies, to regulate our personal decisions, what we put in our body, who we can let in our shops, who can travel, who can gather, and so on. History is replete with examples of why a certain subset of mammals should not be given the power to do any of this. Not only do we lose this power for the time being, but it is unlikely we will get any of it back. But it’s the perennial faith of mankind: while every day records another failure, every day the belief that it needs an act of government to fix everything reappears.
“John P.A. Ioannidis is Professor of Medicine and Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health, as well as Professor (by courtesy) of Biomedical Science and Statistics, at Stanford University.”
Right, fair control or all-but eradication of cholera measles meningitis smallpox ebola typhus ...
Quoting NOS4A2
Well, who cares?
I might have mentioned Baffin Bay, Greenland, before. Sneak off to the great Bay, make a wholly independent living there, free of social life and other people, no one else to take into account except the occasional polar bear and perhaps an Inuit now and then. (y)
I don't know why you would prohibit government from forcing the vaccine on you, but you would not prohibit individuals from forcing the virus on you. If the government has vaccines and should keep them out of you, then shouldn't the individual who has the virus also keep it out of you? And, where the burden is upon government to prove safety of the vaccine, shouldn't the burden be placed on the individual to prove they are safe from the virus? Like a driver's license? You can't get on the road without it. You shouldn't be allowed in public until you prove you aren't injecting the virus into others.
As far as history, the individual has fucked over the individual way more than government has. Hence Constitutions, statutes, regulations, and policies. Has the government fucked over people? Yes, but the people elected the government so they fucked themselves if they didn't do anything about it. In general, the government is relatively benign, only regulating people who fail to regulate themselves, to the detriment of others.
So, yeah, I'm in favor of locking you out of the public until such time as you prove you aren't running around injecting others with virus.
The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are new technology. The phase 3 trial system is based on evidence from the old technology. Just in case something unforeseen arose, no CEO wanted to make his or her hospital vulnerable to a class action lawsuit.
The government can be responsible for the medical treatment of people if the health of others are at risk, which they are in this case. That's why they're doing this. There's a history of vaccine requirements for healthcare workers and schoolchildren. It's a reasonable policy. Extending this policy in the face of a serious pandemic is justified.
I don't know whatever came of it, but I thought federal legislation was proposed a long time ago providing a liability shield? There was quite the uproar about that.
Perfectly fine. Just like it's perfectly fine to smoke if you choose to do so. I think you're an idiot for doing so, but it's your right. Just stay away from anywhere people congregate.
No one is saying everyone must get vaccinated or face legal consequences. What they're mandating is vaccines for workplaces, schools, etc. Refuse? OK -- then either don't come here or agree to be tested more often to protect others. Vaccine passports for travel, also a good idea. Those that don't like any of this -- tough. Just like it's tough for smokers these days.
Quoting NOS4A2
School and work vaccine mandates have been around for decades.
Also, we follow laws every day of our lives. Some are legitimate, some aren't. You happen to think this mandate (not a law) is illegitimate, but that's because you're a medical ignoramus and, again, we're lucky you're not running the show.
I hadn't heard anything about it.
The more I think about it, the left was the side complaining because the right was proposing limited liability for keeping their slaughter houses open and their illegal immigrants working hard in Covid-infested environments. They didn't want to be open and providing essential meat to the country if the workers could sue them for getting sick if they were forced to work instead of stay home. Or mask. Or something.
My bust.
If one is vaccinated he can download a QR code from the government’s website. Some poor hostess-turned-state-enforcer will scan it along with government ID whenever entering a compliant premises. I’m not sure what this means for those without smartphones, computers, internet, and government identification, but one way or another they must find a way to show this code and identify themselves before entry. Perhaps they should sew it to their lapel and be done with it.
It’s easy enough for the government to contract out a fancy new website and generate QR codes. The burden, however, falls upon the citizen, the business owner, the worker, who must now enforce discriminatory policies at the doorstep of their business. A friend of mine who runs a dumpling restaurant now finds herself in the situation where her largely unvaccinated staff will be serving her vaccinated customers. A false sense of security, it seems, is at least a kind of security.
I’m not sure what percentage of people must be vaccinated before the government ends its discriminatory program, but I suspect it will be with us for some time. My only hope is that it collapses beneath its own stupidity before it begets acts of resentment and retribution, which will no doubt affect the innocent, vaccinated or not.
Keep fighting the good fight against the medical community. COVID has a good ally.
When in doubt, play identity politics.
Others play it, you live it.
Oh dear. Wrong again.
Keep fighting for the "freedom" to spread a virus like a selfish imbecile. You're doing God's work.
Excellent summary by Dr. Suppinger:
http://www.williamsonherald.com/opinion/commentary-why-should-i-care-if-others-get-vaccinated/article_96e737c2-b369-11eb-90ce-c79d7571ff9a.html
Jesus! Take it easy! The Corona war continues. I bet you wouldn't mind see Nosferatu hanging high...
In the past, pandemic class diseases have been eradicated/defeated with vaccinations that provided permanent immunity to individuals and ultimately prevented transmission and infection. But with Covid, experts are unclear as to the duration of immunity, whether from natural infection or vaccination. They have only determined that immunization, whether natural or synthetic, does not provide permanent immunity to individuals. They also lack sufficient data on how much the vaccine reduces the transmission of covid. This means that even if 70% global vaccination is acheived, future transmission and infection always remain possible. With this in mind, in what way does the current mass vaccination programming make herd immunity a viable reality?
I think the vaccines works for about 8 months. Natural immunity varies, but it's not long, so it will be a threat from now on. I don't think we'll ever have herd immunity for it the way we do with measles.
That's my thought. I'm still trying to find the current level of herd immunity the experts say we're at globally, but no luck yet.
Anybody know?
But not as possible as 60%. No one knows when herd immunity is reached— there’s no exact number, but clearly the more the better.
Regrettably, if we had the same level of vaccinations as we did with polio and other vaccines, we might have achieved herd immunity already.
But, thanks to politicization, the social media-accelerated spread of misinformation, and a sizable percentage of the population primed for refusal through years of deliberate undermining of science (and facts, and truth) by conservative media, we’ve missed that chance.
I don’t know what more it will take.
Unfortunately, Israel has already shown that this isn't true. 78% over 12 vaccinated, no herd immunity.
That what isn’t true?
Quoting frank
Again, we don’t know what number we need for herd immunity— but, as I mentioned, if we had a polio-level rate when that vaccine was rolled out, we might have reached herd immunity, or — without question — had far less hospitalizations and deaths.
Also worth pointing out that 65% of current serious COVID cases are among the 17% unvaccinated in Israel.
I think the polio vaccination rate was around 80%.
Quoting Xtrix
And the other 35% are vaccinated. The vaccine wears off after a few months.
Then it is probable that amongst that 65% of unvaccinated, a substantial number includes those whose vaccine immunity has expired. Seems hard to keep track of these percentages when a vaccinated person can lose immunity over time and become a vector
I guess going forward they'll particularly encourage the elderly and people with chronic conditions to get vaccinated yearly or biyearly. And everyone else? I don't know
BTW, they're predicting a bad flu season this year because of the lockdowns last year. Get a flu shot.
Which, if true for the same timeline, would have — without question — reduced hospitalizations and death, and might have reached herd immunity.
Quoting frank
That is being studied closely, but appears to be true— at least in Israel. Those with boosters comprise far less than those with two shots.
What’s your point, exactly? Or do you have one, besides making statements out of the blue, irrelevant to my post?
It's true here. I'm in a study now. I was vaccinated in December and my antibodies were gone in August.
No. What’s been studied so far suggests less effectiveness after 6-8 months. There’s discussion about need for boosters. This is not the same as wearing off. This is also different than Israel’s situation.
Frontline healthcare workers are getting their third shots now.
Interesting
And…?
If the goal is herd immunity, the only thing that matter is how long individual immunity can be achieved through vaccination. Simply using the vax to reduce severity of infection does not bring us closer to herd immunity. It is common knowledge that vaccine breakthrough infections occur rather frequently with covid, making such a vector far more hazardous than an unvaccinated one.
What is needed is a 99% effective vaccine that immunizes permanently. Until then, it's just thumbs up assholes.
Yep.
Quoting Xtrix
If you have an auto-immune disorder you can go ahead and get your third shot. Otherwise you'll have to wait your turn.
3 shots already and the vax hasn't even reached its first birthday. Jesus Satan Mohamed!!!! One shot is surely reasonble. Two shots is awfully inefficient but tolerable. But requiring three shots is pushing it a little too to far. We already have two failed shots, how about they make it work right third time. How many shots is it gonna take, 20 billion?. . .40 gazzilion?
No, what’s needed is for people to listen to the overwhelming medical consensus, get vaccinated, and follow protocol. It’s worked elsewhere, it can work here. We’re the wealthiest nation in the world, and we have currently some of the worst results. We’re a hot spot. Looking closer into the map, the cases spiking right now are among the states with high rates of unvaccinated people— mostly states run by Republicans. If refusal continues, there’s greater risk of more variants.
The reason we’ve seen another spike in the US is because of vaccine refusal and hesitancy. This has nothing to do with boosters.
Where exactly has it worked?
Is this a joke?
That's exactly what I'm asking
Sounds like you are partisan minded. Just a cop out
Take a look at the world map displayed every day in the NY Times. Look at COVID hotspots. You’ll find the US around the same levels as Cuba and Mongolia.
Plenty of other places doing much better, which are far less wealthy. This isn’t all due to vaccines, either, but a general following of medical protocol. Here we’re fighting school boards over masks.
The issue are anti-vaxxers, ignorance, and misinformation
The vaccine makes your cells manufacture the spike protein. They could just genetically engineer everyone so we're all shaped like giant coronaviruses.
No, a fact. Maps and statistics aren’t partisan. But interesting that you’d take it personally. Pretty revealing.
Really, they aren't? I guess those with fanatical dispositions , political biases or agendas never manufacture statistics and maps. We are all safe to believe all statistics and maps without nonpartisan scrutiny. Very convincing.
The issue is, the world is full of morons, both left and right
So you're suggesting, without evidence, that vaccination rate numbers are wrong -- or that hospitalization rates/death rates are wrong, or both.
It's amazing how many conspiracy theorists this site attracts. They have to undermine all evidence, consensus, and credibility -- because none of these are on their side. So they must be wrong. Excellent reasoning.
Very convincing.
I'm realizing that right now.
Am I suggesting that? By no means am I or would I. I have no issue with any statistics you provide concerning vaccination rate numbers, or hospitalization rates/death rates. Very strange mind you have, in which post of mine did you transmute that I was speaking about vaccination rate numbers, or hospitalization rates/death rates?
If I am suggesting anything, it is that the current vax program, as it stands in the here and now, is impotent and incapable of eradicating covid as a public health concern. And, if I understand correctly, that the goal is to achieve herd immunity, immunity being the operative word..."IMMUNITY"... then we need to vaccinate a suffient percentage of the global population with permanent immunity in order to achieve IT.
It doesn't even have to be permanent, just a long enough duration that it cannot become pandemic.
Which are you, right or left?
I'll jog your memory. I referred you to the NY Times global map of vaccination rates and death rates. This followed.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
So now you're saying that accusing me of being "partisan" was pertaining to the FACT that these rates are occurring "mostly in states run by Republicans"?
So here we have two sets of facts: (1) vaccination, hospitalization, and death statistics per state and (2) the political affiliation of those states governments.
I suppose it's "partisan minded" to link these two sets of facts? An odd thing to say, considering it's very well documented that conservatives are far more likely to refuse the vaccines than other demographics.
But continue gaslighting if you'd like.
Sorry, I was being facetious. I don't give two shits about political parties. They are the lamest parties ever thrown, and I say fuck off to bothofem. But you started it.
Quoting Xtrix
Again, you are drawing correlations. Prove the causation and you will have ground to stand on. I respect ground standing more the wind walking.
Quoting Xtrix
There you go again, talking parties. I wish I could take you to one of my parties, you would never be the same again.
Accussations from the one who has been trolling and gaslighting for pages. Resorting to ad hominem, typical of the defeated sophist
Good one! :grin:
No. Stating FACTS. Those two sets of facts, above, are exactly that. They’re beyond question, unless you’re questioning the accuracy of the statistics.
It’s also a fact that these states have Republican governments.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Lol. Good one, Donald Trump.
It's true the US stands out with an unusually large number of cases and deaths.
I think there are probably multiple reasons for that, resistance to medical advice being only one of them.
The others are things like: a large migrant community (we're like India in that way), a high incidence of heart disease, obesity, and diabetes, and the fact that we're the world's only superpower means we're not exactly out of the way.
True, one of many. But I'd say the main one. There's studies on this. 18% of men say they will never get the shot. 46% of Republicans have not yet been vaccinated; 44% of White evangelicals. They give their reasons, as well: 75% of all groups are "skeptical" of both COVID and its vaccines. 90% say they aren't concerned about getting sick and are less convinced the vaccines work.
And so on. It's by far the biggest factor among the unvaccinated -- and right now, it's exactly the unvaccinated that are being hospitalized and dying. Well over 90%.
My understanding was that herd immunity, if it was ever a genuine possibility, is in the rear-view mirror now, and that SARS-CoV-2 will become endemic to the human population, like a handful of other coronaviruses. That might mean annual covid shots, or might mean eventually catching covid is catching a cold. In the meantime, the vaccine is for reducing illness and death and to some degree transmission.
If we got vaccines that really conferred immunity, then herd immunity would be on the table again.
Yes, I know.
:up:
Man you folks are paranoid and illlogical in your will for cocoon like security.
I'm surprised some of you leave the house. There's cars and roads everywhere!
If you have been dumb or scared enough to get your magic medicine vaccine then what's your problem?
If the vaccine works why are you worried about those that haven't?
You guys don't believe in freedom you believe in herd instinct.
Famous last words...
Yawn! Two years of "plan-demic" and not so much as a scratch or anybody I know with a scratch.
Biggest and only casualty is the truth.
New Zealand Covid: Men caught smuggling KFC into lockdown-hit Auckland
Or alternatively, the actual statistical inference.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/04/25/is-it-really-true-that-the-u-s-death-rate-in-2020-was-the-highest-above-normal-since-the-early-1900s-even-surpassing-the-calamity-of-the-1918-flu-pandemic/
...but hey, who cares about anything like justified statistical inference when there's a drama we can milk.
The actual death rate in America today is about the same as it was around the year 2000. Remind me, what was the massive terrifying crisis around the year 2000 that we had to all fly into an hysterical panic about? Oh yes...it was heart disease, cancer, accidents, influenza and suicide... and what global unprecedented action did we take to minimise those deaths?...oh yes...fuck all.
About 50,000 people die every day because of the effects of poverty. What massive global action are we taking to prevent those deaths?...oh yes..fuck all again.
So I asked them "You've never helped anyone out of your own volition?" "You've never done something for someone else?" That's when they started cussing me out (it's all on the net somewhere because they were filming all the time, I might go viral, hooray!). No reply really.
Any way, they didn't do it, so I waved down the ticket inspector. All of a sudden face masks were on. It's amazing how afraid these people are of people in a uniform and immediately listen. In the end they blindly obey authority when they're confronted with it (whatever happened to "I do what I want"?). She still kicked them off the train though at the stop. Lots of swearing and middle fingers in my direction; so I thanked them for their seats.
They were being implicitly threatened with violence. That is why they were afraid. Nothing strange about that. With violence or threats thereof you can make people do all sorts of amazing things.
In a lawless environment where I could've beaten the shit out of them without repercussion, I would have. So, thank god for "implicit" threats of violence. Saved those kids a few broken legs.
If you don't want to wear a mask, don't get on the train.
The Unbelievable Grimness of HermanCainAward, the Subreddit That Catalogs Anti-Vaxxer COVID Deaths
1. I ask them to follow a rule established in trains
2. they get angry and threaten me
3. in a lawless environment, I would've broken their legs for the threat to me. It's called self defence, look it up.
4. Since it's not a lawless environment and the law was on my side, I didn't have to resort to 3 at all
Does that compute in your tiny reptilian brain?
Seems like you got rattled by some kids on a train.
You're playing the tough guy on a philosophy forum. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that. Are you making a case for how little we have evolved beyond chimpanzees?
You are easily confused.
I side with the kids in your story. You meddled in someone else’s affairs, couldn’t make your case or got angry, so you ran to the authorities. That’s not something to be proud of, in my book. Snitching on your neighbors was commonplace in communist and Nazi regimes, so I can understand the comparison.
I’ve discovered that covid authoritarianism is a chance moral refuge for otherwise immoral people. Through sheer tyranny of self-deception they’ve made avoiding people, covering one’s face, hiding in one’s home, and obeying authorities right or wrong, moral acts instead of acts born of fear and ignorance. It might work for a while, Tim, but it will be difficult to rid yourself of the stink you’ve since accumulated.
My only point is that your aversion to your fellow man, sick or not, is born of fear and ignorance. I say ignorance because you don’t know (nor care to know) whether you can get the disease from them. This leads invariably to your fear and intolerance of those you can only pretend are infectious, speaking about consent out of one side of the mouth while demanding state obedience out of the other. I just want to know how you are able to live like this?
No, I don’t drive on the wrong side of the road unless I’m passing someone. I don’t drive on the wrong side of the road because I don’t want to be hit by oncoming traffic.
I do understand what a pandemic is. I do understand the death toll and that people are getting ill. No, I do not believe governments act by and for the people.
Oh, so you do know who is infectious or not?
Thanks to people like you.
It’s because, like you and me, they’re human. I can’t think of any man good enough to be another’s master. Can you?
"Any man" is singular. I think the U.S. settled that back in the 18th Century. We opted instead, for men, now women too.
I can’t think of any men good enough to be another’s master. Can you?
https://www.9news.com.au/national/melbourne-protests-victoria-police-granted-no-fly-zone-over-melbournes-cbd/656f4379-cbb0-45e8-9e38-948951586f22
[tweet]https://twitter.com/4JournoFreedom/status/1440611946449936386?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1440611946449936386%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.9news.com.au%2Fnational%2Fmelbourne-protests-victoria-police-granted-no-fly-zone-over-melbournes-cbd%2F656f4379-cbb0-45e8-9e38-948951586f22[/tweet]
Maybe they are trying to hide video such as this:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/CaldronPool/status/1440580565678231563?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1440580565678231563%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatriots.win%2Fp%2F13zMsEzW65%2Faustralia-has-fallen-police-in-v%2Fc%2F[/tweet]
That's what I do. :grin:
I feel for you, you poor bastard.
Yea, well. Thanks. :grin:
SARS-CoV-2/pandemic isn’t the one regimenting our lives. We are witness to the greatest peacetime policy failures in world history. Grab the popcorn.
Now generally, I don't have either the time or inclination to have to make my case for people who refuse to follow the rules. We can have such discussions here, we can do that during a protest, we can do that in Parliament but we don't do it in a fucking train where the majority of people are too scared to speak up because they're afraid a bunch of teenage assholes will beat them up.
It's also funny that you think I took pride in doing this, which was totally not the point of the story. But I didn't expect anything else but for your and Tzeentch to jump on this.
Quoting Isaac
Absolute global povetry has gone down. But that naturally isn't the politically correct news to say. Especially for Americans.
And the reason why American aren't aware that things have improved in other places:
Exactly. So it's a misleading statistic deliberately cited in terms designed to further the fear and panic. Yet you thought it a good idea to promote it. We fully expect any epidemic to kill more people these days because there are more people to kill. In addition, this epidemic targets mainly the elderly and America's demographic has shifted heavily in favour of this age group, and there's an obesity crisis in America which we would fully expect to make them much more vulnerable to any epidemic than they would have been otherwise (even without the fact that Covid seems to particularly target the obese). We might also expect a lower figure due to the improvements in medical care, but that's harder to quantify with variable access to care and the disease primarily affecting the already sick (ie those medical care has failed to actually cure thus far).
The question is what you think such a misleading statistic contributes to the discussion. Why post it?
Quoting ssu
So? Vulnerability to COVID-19 would go down too if we just did nothing. If COVID kills 1,900 a day now, and we took no further steps at all, in 20 years time it would kill a fraction of that number. The point is we're pulling out all the stops to reduce deaths from this particular cause right now, not gradual steps to reduce it a bit over the next 20 years.
Again the point is the deliberate misuse of statistics. 1,900 people die every day from Covid. That just sounds a lot, anything over a thousand is a big number to most people. Out of context it's completely meaningless. Before Covid did you know, off the top of your head, how many people die every day from any given cause? No (or if you did, you're in a minority). So what use is the out of context figure? Is 1,900 a lot, normal, low...? No-one knows because presented without any comparative data it's useless, so again, why post it?
As far as my attempts to provide comparative figures are concerned - the issue is not that global poverty has gone down (my use of 'fuck all' was rhetorical - I might have said 'very little') it's that the number of deaths were seen as normal. In 2000 it was seen as normal to have 900 or so deaths per 100,000. By 2019 it was normal to have 800 or so deaths per 100,000. Now, due to a new cause of death on the scene, we're back up to 900,000 or so per 100,000, only unlike in 2000, when it was accepted as normal, this time it's being seen as something which every grain of social, economic and political effort must be immediately put to reducing. That is the relative comparison to make. That the causes of the deaths in 2000 were being dealt with slowly, eventually, as part of mixed approach to contemporary issues. The deaths in 2021 are being dealt with by the full force of social and economic pressure to the exclusion of all other contemporary considerations.
Of course, I'm sure that fact that the solution being used in 2021 has been provided by the largest, most powerful lobbying industry the world has ever seen has nothing whatsoever to do with that change of approach and is a complete coincidence.
You're failing to take into account the fact that the figure would likely be much higher if "social, economic and political effort" hadn't been "put to reducing" it.
No. I said
Quoting Isaac
...although, had I not, my comment would still have been true. In 20 year's time the death toll would be dramatically reduced.
The point I was making is that the death toll from various preventable causes prior to 2000 was higher than the death toll from Covid-19 now. The only action we took against those causes - despite their being completely preventable - was a very slow and incremental set of changes balanced against the many other contemporary calls on our social, economic and political energy which took 20 years to get us to the lower level of preventable deaths we enjoyed by 2019.
Someone that doesn't know or understand that there are far more Americans today than one hundred years ago has to go to himself or herself. It isn't misleading.
But naturally to some people you have to state the obvious.
Comes to my mind the calculation that there were 2,5 billion Tyrannosaurus Rex dinosaurs that lived on Earth ages ago. Of course the species wandered around for 2 million years, so actually at one time there was roughly around the World 20 000 specimens of the dinosaurs living. (Just for comparison, there are roughly 55 000 grizzly bears today in North America today).
I assume that if (or when) the million mark is reached years from now, people will likely disregard it in a similar way...as being misleading. And why wouldn't they. That HIV has killed roughly 36 million people doesn't matter either.
So your comment was meant to say "there's more deaths from Covid-19 now than deaths from Spanish Flu then, but this is completely unsurprising because there's more people now" So why post it? So that we can all nod in ennui at it's calculable typicality?
It's not completely unsurprising: just look at the flu epidemics from the Spanish flu to the present. Add to the fact that medicine and health care has rapidly improved from the start of the last Century. Every other epidemic (pandemic) has had far less deaths with (with the exception of HIV).
Who in their right mind would think that, believing the figures we've seen? There are groups who don't believe the official figures to varying degrees, but they're hardly going to be swayed by you quoting the official figures are they? Of those who are inclined to believe the official figures, do you think there's a single person who still thinks this is an average flu epidemic?
Quoting ssu
Which we'd expect given lower populations in the past. So adjusting for population size, certainly the Spanish flu counts, as does HIV, as you say, both of which dwarf COVID when looked at in terms of percentage of the population affected (2.5% for Spanish flu, 0.7% for HIV, 0.05% for COVID). So what you're saying is that COVID is killing more people than any other pandemic, except for the ones where it isn't. Well, can't argue with that.
Remind me again of the massive global effort to tackle the HIV crisis? There was that time we went into trillions of debt, and put huge social pressure on the wealthy to fund massive investment in healthcare infrastructure in the third world... oh no, wait there wasn't...I remember now, we did fuck all.
There was a global effort to tackle the AIDS crisis. Condoms everywhere, lots of communication, ARV drugs made affordable to the poor, the Global Fund against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria created and well funded.
You could try a little less cynicism.
$11 trillion spent on the COVID response so far.
$4 billion a year from the Global Fund against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
It would take over 2000 years of investment to match.
And HIV has killed about ten times as many people as a proportion of the population.
You could try a little less naive cheerleading.
Although, the investment in this vaccine technology will ultimately save lives in the future because it will speed up response to the next asshole virus.
No. HIV, poverty, tuberculosis, malaria, childhood obesity, heart disease, cancer, mental health issues, are all still ongoing causes of death and debilitation and we're still largely ignoring them (relative to covid).
We're not doing better, we've just created a system in which the cause with the most Facebook likes gets the fucking cavalry whilst everything else gets the home guard.
Will it though? With rapidly dropping effectiveness against even minor variants of SARS-Cov-2, to what extent do you think it's going to be of any use against a completely different SARS altogether? We've still got to sequence the epitopes. Yes, we've got a cracking new delivery system, and that's not to be sniffed at, but as a response to epidemics in general, creating vaccines is an extremely inefficient method. As the WHO's Global Preparedness Monitoring Board have only recently reported. Our current vaccine/lockdown based methods have cost about 500 times more than non-pharmaceutical preparedness would have.
With all the attention firmly focused on vaccination, the chances of anything useful being done to prepare for the next one are remote.
Same old same old. It was already the case with AIDS. What happened with the creation of the Global Fund on Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, was that instead of funding and capacitating national health systems able to tackle various health threats in, say, Africa, the Fund invested in dedicated AIDS-specific delivery channels (NGOs in particular), on the assumption that this was the real, important crisis, and that national health systems were often corrupt and ineffective... Decades later, people wish they had addressed the weaknesses of those health systems, because new threats keep coming.
COVID is not the big one. I agree with you on this. It is a rehearsal for the big one.
It makes it easier, faster, and cheaper to keep up with mutations. There's every reason to believe it will save lives going forward.
Quoting Isaac
The more efficient method is to let them die in their front yards gasping for breath? Or what?
Quoting Isaac
Your point was that our response to covid was disproportional to the lives we saved. I responded that the vaccine technology has only begun to save lives. That's a pretty safe bet.
Meanwhile nobody's doing anything to prepare for climate change while my once temperate zone is in the process of tropicalizing. For real.
How’re those “social responses” working out? Not so well, the last time I checked. It’s no surprise that with all the genius of public health all they could come up with was imprisoning their citizens and trying to regiment society with draconian and arbitrary edicts. Such actions suggest people are more of a problem than Covid-19.
Yep. And here we are, one public forum among many, talking about nothing but how ordinary people not taking vaccines and not wearing masks are to blame for it all. How do you think that's going to be played by government's wanting to avoid blame for their lack of completely foreseeable failure to adequately prepare?
Quoting frank
No, the more efficient method is
Oh, and whinge about people not taking vaccines... they must have missed that one.
I've placed a lot of the blame on internet hype and social media from the start. It has allowed us to infect each other with our ignorances and stupidities much more efficienty and directly than the more traditional forms of mass media. Now, instead of generic talking heads feeding us lies and misinformation, it is our friends and family doing it.
People are always telling me to “trust the science” and to otherwise put faith in a category of mammals called “experts”, but then we find they’re funding gain-of-function research and planning to create “chimeric viruses” enhanced to infect humans more easily, with no doubt the purpose of protecting us from this disease.
Even more frightening:
Just brilliant. Well, at least the Lancet, used as it was to promote unscientific propaganda, has started publishing some views contrary to the misinformation platter we’ve been dining from the past couple years. But, for now, they can only appeal for an “objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2”, because while it was impossible then, it is certainly not easy now.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02019-5/fulltext#%20
Ahh, “there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2”. Imagine saying this a year ago.
Some of this stuff would require a global government. Experience with the real world would convince you of that.
Could be better, could be worse?
[sup]• The 3 Simple Rules That Underscore the Danger of Delta (Jul 1, 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)
• Vast majority of ICU patients with COVID-19 are unvaccinated, ABC News survey finds (Jul 29, 2021)
• Confirmed Cases of COVID-19 Following Vaccination in Ontario: December 14, 2020 to August 7, 2021 (Aug 16, 2021)
• To protect our kids from COVID-19, we have to be grown-ups (Aug 16, 2021)
• Vaccinations Against COVID-19 May Have Averted Up To 140,000 Deaths In The United States (Aug 18, 2021)
• Largest real-world study of COVID-19 vaccine safety published (Aug 26, 2021)
• Massive randomized study is proof that surgical masks limit coronavirus spread, authors say (Sep 1, 2021)
• CDC finds unvaccinated 11 times more likely to die of COVID (Sep 11, 2021)[/sup]
Quoting NOS4A2
There are definitely problematic humans out there. (Are you one of them?)
[sup]• The Wisconsin pharmacist who sabotaged 500 vaccine doses believes the Earth is flat and that the sky is a shield to stop us seeing God, according to FBI documents (Feb 2, 2021)
• 15 Infuriating Stories About Doctors Who Had To Diagnose A COVID-19 Denier With The Coronavirus (Apr 21, 2021)
• London transport staff warned of anti-mask posters with razor blades (Sep 9, 2021)
• UPDATE: Shock in Germany after cashier shot dead in Covid mask row (Sep 21, 2021)[/sup]
I see no “social responses” in your Gish gallop, unfortunately.
I’m not sure criminal activity and frustrated doctors constitute enough reason to regiment the lives of all citizens.
Quoting NOS4A2
There were some sample moves/results. Subsequent to ...
Quoting jorndoe
We are still talking SARS-CoV-2/pandemic, right...?
Will it?
With the new Sanofi vaccine, there are also concerns that it will simply not be profitable for pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines against a family of rapidly mutating viruses, such as the coronaviruses.
Quoting frank
Why do people live? What do they hope to accomplish by living? Should they be helped to live, made to live, solely for the sake of living?
It would be easier to design an emergency response strategy to a health crisis if people's lives would be considered in terms of "living as a means to an end", rather than just "living for the sake of living".
It is, of course, unacceptable to bring this up in polite society. But it is precisely because we haven't cleared this up and instead made it into a taboo topic that our response to a crisis (any crisis) is bound to be ineffective.
"No further steps at all" is not from the section I was quoting, and is a different point. My point stands; if the effort had not been put in the death toll would likely have been much. much greater by now and into the near future.
You don't know how great the death toll could be in twenty years; it's pure conjecture. If there were no vaccination program much more virulent strains might have emerged. They might anyway. I am really struggling to see what your position actually is. Are you against the vaccination program? Do you think there is a viable alternative to it in the situation we find ourselves in?
In any case, whatever your answer to that might be, from a pragmatic point of view, if vaccination is seen as the only viable strategy and that is the strategy adopted, pretty much world-wide, then its best chance of working would be if everyone who can get vaccinated does get vaccinated. So, given that, what makes you think any individual who has no medical reason not to be vaccinated would be morally justified in refusing to play their part in the effort; to do so simply seems antisocial.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
With Pfizer's technology they can make a new vaccine in a couple of weeks.
Unfortunately it has to be super frozen, so it's not ideal for protecting war torn regions, for instance.
Would anyone put it past Donald Trump to pressure US pharmaceutical companies to cut corners and seek approval for a vaccine they weren't sure was safe and effective, and then to pressure federal agencies to approve and distribute such a vaccine? The President made much of Operation Warp Speed, and was probably looking forward to claiming victory again whether he had won or not. (In the fight against the virus, that is. No one would ever do that in a national election.)
That's an unlikely amount of paperwork to fake, and maybe there are limits to how self-centered he is, I dunno. Of course the vaccines arrive right as he's leaving, but if we was putting his thumb on the scales, the incoming administration would need time to figure that out and then what? "Sorry folks, it's going to be another year"? Yikes. More likely, they'd just hush it all up, even though it was really the outgoing administration's fault. But then they'd be getting the blowback when the thing turns out to be dangerous or ineffective, so maybe it's more of a risk not to clean up the mess you inherited.
Second question: pharmaceutical companies have been getting pretty bad press lately; would they be stupid enough to provide vaccines that were dangerous or ineffective, knowing that it would be rolled out to hundreds of millions of Americans, and probably that many more in less important places? Wouldn't they be scared of the inevitable blowback if this thing either didn't work or was actually harmful?
Again, a lot of paperwork hurdles to get through, and maybe there's enough greed to overcome what looks like a pretty big PR risk, I dunno.
These are sort of "skin in the game" questions. Obviously the makers of vaccines stand to make money. But what risks are they taking? Is there any risk from a PR nightmare, or do you just sit on your money and wait for it all to blow over? Do the feds claw back their money if you misrepresented your vaccine? What about the federal agencies involved? The CDC, once the most trusted institution in America, took a pretty big hit to its credibility. How many bureaucrats and government scientists worried about losing their jobs if they bungled this -- I'm not talking about political appointees, who have a whole different calculus. Maybe not many, but the loss of reputation could seriously hurt your options for jumping to the private sector. Who is so secure that they're not worried about sitting under the lights in the inevitable televised Congressional hearings, trying to explain how it's not personally their fault that somebody's family members died. (This isn't like climate change, where you're long gone by the time it'll be obvious how badly you fucked up.)
Just wondering.
No.
https://unu.edu/news/news/reaffirming-the-uns-role-in-global-governance.html#info
Quoting Janus
So do you have knowledge I'm not privy to? Or is there some other reason why you can say that the death toll would likely have been much much more "into the future", yet I can't possible know what the death toll would be?
Quoting Janus
Do you have any evidence at all of this? The prevailing scientific opinion is that the virus will become a flu-like endemic disease.
Quoting Janus
It's not that complicated - vaccination is a small part of a much larger raft of measures which are needed to combat the crisis now and into the future, it's a useful tool, not a panacea. There's absolutely no need to pursue anyone who doesn't want to take the vaccine for any reason (it's just not that important a tool, so long as a good number want it); and focusing all the media attention on anti-vaxxers as being to blame for the continuation of the crisis draws attention away from the huge amount of other actions which are required to protect us now and in the future, but which governments are more reluctant to take given the expense an unpopularity of many of them.
Pressure needs to be substantial and consistent to force governments (and the population) to take the steps necessary in terms of health investment, inequality, and public health improvements. That pressure is currently being pissed away in favour of righteous tribalism.
Wait until the state begins really enforcing its Covid mandates, you will see the death toll rise immensely. . .as a result of Covid of course.
It think I do. Possibly, it's that clinging on to every second of life by our fingernails and "hang the expense" is pointless and undignified. People die when it's their time. The important thing is that they've had a good life. We too easily forget about giving people a good life and pour every expense into just extending it. We live in a world in which child labour is still part of the normal cycle of production, yet helping a 95 year old terminal cancer sufferer die is, mostly, illegal. It's a huge part of what's skewed our response to this crisis.
It was "now and into the near future". If no lockdowns and other measures had been in place and no vaccines, there would likely have been a much greater death toll. Are you seriously claiming that the vaccines haven't made a significant difference to the death toll?
And I said you couldn't possibly know what the death toll would have been or will be twenty years into the future. But you ignored those qualifications regarding the future.
Quoting Isaac
Do you have any papers to cite in support of that claim? That may indeed be the more likely scenario, but who knows? Even the experts can't predict the future with certainty.
Quoting Isaac
I think you are going against the grain of expert opinion if you think that vaccination is a "small part". The consensus seems to be that without vaccines we might never get out of the next wave/ lockdown cycle, which is obviously unsustainable. Also the more people get vaccinated the better the outcome will be. I'm not in favour of blaming people as I've said, but I really can't understand why anyone intelligent who isn't given to irrational fears would be reluctant to do their bit for the effort to get the best outcome. Other social issues should be addressed of course, but the emergency now is the fight against covid. You still haven't given your reasons for not wanting the vaccine. Do you have a rational reason or are you simply afraid of it?
As I'm sure you're aware, the pharmaceutical companies have a track record of lying about both safety and efficacy, so they wouldn't even need the pressure from Donald Trump, or anyone in government.
As the Cochrane Foundation recently concluded...
Perhaps more pertinent to our current situation is the handling of the HPV vaccine. In an investigation Researchers found that "the involvement of the vaccine manufacturer, Merck,was particularly damaging".
Merck’s intervention in the policy process, included the provision of funds to an organisation of female legislators that introduced many of the bills to mandate HPV vaccination.
Most damningly, a principal investigator of HPV vaccine trials for Merck and GlaxoSmithKline agreed that “It seemed very odd to be mandating something for which 95 percent of infections never amount to anything”
Later reviews showed that design problems in the HPV vaccine trials, most of which were led by academics but sponsored by industry, made it difficult to evaluate the extent to which the vaccine prevented cervical cancer.
The program was stopped.
(Rees CP, Brhlikova P, Pollock AM. Will HPV vaccination prevent cervical cancer? J R Soc Med)
The FDA are not much better unfortunately
As to their current practices... From Pete Doshi, writing in the BMJ
Last year the FDA said it was “committed to use an advisory committee composed of independent experts to ensure deliberations about authorisation or licensure are transparent for the public.” But in a statement, the FDA told The BMJ that it did not believe a meeting was necessary ahead of the expected granting of full approval. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, who has also spoken at recent VRBPAC meetings, told The BMJ, “It’s obvious that the FDA has no intention of hearing anyone else’s opinion.
Same old, same old... fudging, deception, poor methodology...and this is the stuff they publish! With no requirement at all to publish null results, raw data sets nor statistical analysis methods.
A report from an analyst at Goldman Sachs came out a little while back about the Hep C treatment...
Or Ritalin as another example...
In 2012, GlaxoSmithKline was fined $3 billion fine and pled guilty to criminal charges of knowingly promoting anti-depressant drugs to children despite not being approved by the FDA to be used for off-label purposes in minors. In 2013 Johnson & Johnson were fined $2.2 billion for its promotion of off-label drugs. In 2009 Pfizer were fined $2.3 billion for illegally marketing Bextra, a painkiller. Note these were all illegal acts. Criminal activity.
Anyway, unlike the wisdom displayed in your previous deleting activities, I should have deleted all this but won't, it's not like all of this isn't common knowledge. If these deals were made with the arms industry or the tobacco industry, or some chemical giant there'd not be a soul just taking them at their word but medicines get a free ride I guess.
I didn't ignore them, they are the entire point. I was refuting a response from ssu that we had made progress on the other causes of death - the drop in death rate after 20 years was cited in evidence. I was just saying that in 20 years the death rate from COVID would be that low too, the relevant comparison is the effort we're putting in right now.
Quoting Janus
Of course - https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n494
Quoting Janus
The other issues are the fight against COVID - that's the point. And they come from the WHO's own agency responsible (as I've extensively quoted above).
Quoting Janus
Yes, I'm aware of that. As I've argued extensively, there's no moral nor rational reason why one ought to adhere to the consensus opinion. Consensus among experts is not strongly predictive of the utility of a theory, membership of the set of theories considered by experts is.
Quoting Janus
I've discussed the matter extensively. I don't trust the pharmaceutical industry and I don't agree that giving vaccines to healthy people who have little chance of contracting the severe disease is a good use of limited resources. I don't see any moral imperative for me to take a vaccine since the outcome of my doing so is very unlikely to reduce harm relative to my not doing so. I'm very unlikely to need hospital treatment if I do get it, I'm very unlikely (given my hygiene measures) to pass the disease on (and the vaccine is only marginal in reducing transmission anyway), and there's little to no evidence that mass vaccination will do any more to stop the virus long term than naturally acquired immunity.
If you were vaccinated you would be even less likely to get infected and transmit the virus. Every little bit helps. You haven't given any good reason why you shouldn't be vaccinated, and nor have you explained why you don't want to be vaccinated.
https://theconversation.com/mounting-evidence-suggests-covid-vaccines-do-reduce-transmission-how-does-this-work-160437
It's not normal to require people to take all action available to them to reduce any given risk. We normally only require that the rusk be reduced below an acceptable threshold. Do you think that in all your lifestyle choices I couldn't point to some action you could take to reduce the risks associated with them?
Quoting Janus
Quoting Isaac
I don't need a good reason why I shouldn't be vaccinated, it's not a default position. You need a good reason why I should, by which I mean some demonstration that it's unreasonable of me to hold a position that the risk I represent by my actions is below a normal acceptable threshold of risk.
So I think a better question to ask is why anyone wouldn’t get vaccinated. At least in the case of other “risky” choices like smoking or boxing one can defer to addiction and entertainment and things like that, but I can’t see anything like that for choosing to not be vaccinated. Is it just that you’re lazy and can’t be bothered? Is it that you believe that the vaccines are more dangerous than the disease? Is it that you’re being stubborn in the face of pressure to get vaccinated as some sort of principled objection to being told what to do?
To me, refusing to be vaccinated is as unreasonable as refusing to wear a seatbelt, or refusing antibiotics when sick with some infection. You shouldn’t need to be explained why you should do these things - that much is obvious. You should need to explain why you don’t do these things, as prima facie it’s idiotic, even if you’re at a low risk.
Quoting Isaac
I don't know why everyone is asking the question over and over in such mock bafflement as if I hadn't answered it six times already.
Quoting Michael
Unless your lifestyle involves avoiding prophylactic medicine, in which case it does involve a change of lifestyle.
America is the product of the English Civil War. it is just as imponderable how the Cavaliers managed to keep the loyalty of the yeomen under their authority. It's a matter of conscription, not reasoning. Taking orders. Perhaps there is a collective parallel to a bipolar syndrome. The theme that runs though them is a mandated enthusiasm (think how the founders of the Republic regarded that concept) and its correlate antagonism against reasoned opposition to it. What as a personal syndrome oscillates between mania and depression, as a public malady ranges from crazed obsession to violent resentment against sanity.
So you believe that the vaccine is either more dangerous than the disease or ineffective? It’s neither. So this reasoning is fallacious.
Quoting Isaac
There’s enough to go around. I don’t know about wherever you live but the UK has ordered enough for every adult, and presumably some children too. Refusing the vaccine just leaves it going to waste.
Is it that you want me to read through your list of links and arrive at a conclusion you have yet to argue?
Wait, what? So you're all about labour? Cool. I didn't know.
Hardly. Some union members were protesting their own union while shit-talking the Labour government. So much for labour.
Explain how you reconcile "it's neither" with "I don't trust the pharmaceutical industry"? Or are you just asserting that I should trust the pharmaceutical industry? You're presumably about to tell me they've done tests...the industry I don't trust...have done tests I know to be flawed...in a system I know to be criminally corrupt...
Quoting Michael
I didn't say "waste of vaccine", I said "waste of resources". We've had this argument already. Consequentialism isn't the only ethical system in town, it's not just about whether my actions will actually lead to the spending of resources elsewhere - it's morally wrong and I won't be part of it.
I didn't think so. I should have known you misspoke when you said: "It’s good to see labour in Australia is finding its teeth again." Thanks for clearing that up.
It was tongue-in-cheek. Those old demarcations never existed in the first place.
Got it.
Quoting NOS4A2
I don't know what demarcations you are referring to. So I'll let it go at that.
Just by way of checking how far you normally take this attitude... If a chemical company, say DuPont, had spilt some chemicals in your drinking water reservoir, but their scientists said it was fine, perfectly safe to drink. Their work was checked by some other academics and government officials sponsored and lobbied by the industry or offered lucrative consultancy jobs with DuPont when they finish their academic/government careers. Some other scientists said that the tests were statistically flawed. Filtering the water removes all the chemicals and is easy to do, costs nothing. Would you drink the water, or filter it?
If you answer here is any different to taking the vaccine, what do you think is different about the situation?
The fact that the companies aren’t trying to cover up their own fuckup. The fact that since the introduction of the vaccines the number of deaths, serious symptoms, and cases has dropped. The fact that there have been very few negative reactions to the vaccines.
That you think that the vaccine science is somehow comparable to poisoning water shows that you don’t understand the facts. You believe in false conspiracy theories.
You know this how?
Quoting Michael
Correlation is not causation, there are many factors acting on the number of cases, serious symptoms and deaths, not least of which is the fact that most of the vulnerable are already dead.
Quoting Michael
Who collates and reports on those? What about longer term than just a few months? How can I trust that the vaccines I take will be the same as the one's which have been shown to be safe so far and not some corner-cutting cost-saving knock off to make the venture a bit more profitable. (Oh, and before you cry 'conspiracy', all those things have actually happened with real drugs in real life, charges brought, proven in court, fines paid).
How far will you take yours? If this were "the big one" would you change your attitude or just let five billion people die in three months?
Bit hasty there? Distrusting diabetics die. :death:
You're ignoring the emergency status of the situation. In any case lifestyle choices are motivated by desires and aversions, pleasures and addictions; things which are of ongoing significance to one's life. Getting vaccinated, given that the vaccines are more than safe enough, is nothing more than a minor inconvenience. So, your analogy seems inapt.
Quoting Isaac
In an emergency situation it is incumbent upon everyone who can to do everything they can to maximize the best outcome for everyone. That you think you can shirk that duty on a mere whim "I just don't feel like, so why should I" shows that you lack what is generally accepted as a social virtue; the habit of holding the best interests of your community uppermost in your mind. It is simply an arbitrary and selfish choice not to be vaccinated if you have no good reason not to be vaccinated.
The talk about "a normal acceptable threshold of risk" is a red herring: you are more likely, however minimally, to infect another person, or become critically infected, and need ICU treatment and deny someone else that treatment or other emergency treatment if you don't get vaccinated.
That you would nonetheless refuse to get vaccinated, although you have no good reason for that decision, but just because you don't feel like it, shows an antisocial attitude. Would you be prepared to sign a waiver to the effect that you will refuse medical treatment if you catch covid even if your condition becomes critical? That would be at least a step towards common decency.
:100: :up:
According to https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ there have been a total of 231,809,797 cases of infection, which is about 3 percent of the current world population. So, how could most of the vulnerable be already dead?
No no no, it's only to be distrusted when it's been POLITICIZED. Same with anything in medicine and science: if we're whipped into a frenzy, we know more than the experts and it's important to ask questions, be skeptical, etc.
Everything else: no questions, no skepticism, no thought. Insulin injections? Perfectly fine. But let's try to change that right now and hope it catches on: insulin is part of a Big Pharma plot to keep those with diabetes reliant on their medicine! It's a HOAX!
Imagine if social media existed during the polio vaccine rollout?
"Salk is a Nazi trying to experiment on us!"
I think that is the best solution I've heard yet. Give the antivaxers a choice like this, and I think most would gladly sign up. Unfortunately, I don't think most provaxers would favor any solution beside everyone vaxxed. There is obviously irrational fear on both sides of the conflict, so I don't envision the two sides will find a middle ground anytime soon, to the detriment of us all. God save the earth people.
That's good enough for me.
It’s a step backward from both common decency and human rights to suggest that some should refuse, or be refused, medical treatments because they are unvaccinated. It’s not only antisocial, but cruel.
Emergencies don't change the risk profile, that's derived from the state of affairs as they are so includes any state of affairs that might justify the classification as an emergency.
Quoting Janus
Not in your lifestyle, no. But other people (here's the shocker) have different opinions on the matter. For other people, it is a massive inconvenience. For other people it's a huge change to their lifestyle. Are we getting into judging whether certain lifestyles allow one to risk harm more than others now? Do you really want to go there?
Quoting Janus
Which part of...
Quoting Isaac
...fails to hold the best interests of my community uppermost?
You disagree with my assessment of the situation. It's just unnecessarily antagonistic to assume I'm lying and then start casting aspersions about my motives.
Quoting Janus
No, that's exactly the subject of the 'threshold of risk'. We are never required to take every effort, no matter how minimal an effect it has on the reduction of risk. Were that the case you'd not be allowed to drive.
Quoting Janus
Yes. Would you be prepared to sign a similar waiver for every Big Mac, every extra glass of wine, every day you don't bother going to the gym, every argument, every cigarette, every speed limit infraction, every skiing holiday, every ladder you don't have footed, every heavy item you don't lift with bended knees...
If the vulnerable constituted 3% of the population, of course. Is there something you're having trouble with in that equation?
Do they. I though only diabetics who don't take their meds die. I didn't realise a mental sate was so deadly.
Sissies.
And, that, that is good enough for me.
Retards!!!! Right?
They can't take a shot of RNA for their nation. If there's a war and they are asked to take shots of lead for the nation, what will they do?
Presumably they'd decide whether or not they thought it was the right thing to do and act accordingly. Or would you rather we just suspend all moral judgement in favour of doing whatever the government tells us? 'Cause that's always gone so well...
Presumably they will run away from their social duty, as they do now.
I say "RETARDS"!!!
The war analogy isn’t in your favour. If you liken this to a war then the viruses are the bullets and you are far more scared of them than those you criticise are.
To be clear, I disagree with the war metaphor; to be as condescending as possible I’d describe it as adorable.
I was slow to appreciate that you’ve inadvertently likened the *vaccine* to a bullet here. Really good stuff.
Oh yeah?
:rofl:
Foreign workers could replace NY’s unvaccinated hospital, nursing home staffers: Hochul
Quoting NOS4A2
I sure hope you are listening to yourself. That is a line taken right out of the socialist playbook in opposition to employers who take advantage of employees. Maybe you are learning.
All you guys have are false analogies and never anything about the issue at hand. Chefs? :lol:
An analogy, by definition, is not the thing itself. It is no argument to point that out. Rather, it is incumbent upon those who seek to defeat it to draw a distinction with a relevant difference. That, you failed to do.
You’re copying and pasting other people’s arguments.
The workers might not require vaccines.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3
That's the level of time I'm willing to devote to your nonsense.
Quoting NOS4A2
If their bosses say they are required, then they are required. See how that works?
The science says they aren’t required. What happened to listening to science?
Do you even hear yourself? I was just going to say, fuck science, right? Now NOS is a champion of the working class and science. WTF is the world coming to?
And Riley champions the state and boss’ orders. Nothing much has changed.
Unlike you, my choices are nuanced, which allows me to think without boxing myself into absurdities like you do all the time.
:roll:
Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi S.A. = pharmaceutical industry, kind of big too.
Quoting Isaac
Say, how distrusting would you be if you caught meningitis and/or syphilis and/or rabies? And a kid (of yours)? (Consulting immediately with the family doctor / whoever at a local hospital, is realistic in our case, pharmaceuticals/vaccinations :gasp: might be involved.)
[sub]Are we still talking (blanket) "Big Pharma", Machiavellian profiteering, creating dependents, hoaxery, Nazi manipulation, lies by "them", creeping authoritarianism, or whatever, and a couple quotes that exposed some problems?[/sub]
There's no magic SARS-CoV-2/pandemic cure. There is some number of responses that each can do theirs, and so we do, or responsible adults do anyway. Some are rather commonsensical (except to some incorrigible "skeptics" apparently). By now, there are a few reports weighing effectiveness versus risks, some (historical, textbook) case studies, whatever, and so we learn and act accordingly, we'd be fools not to.
Then there was that 3rd Japanese fellow (RIP):
Third person dies in Japan after taking contaminated Moderna coronavirus vaccine (Sep 8, 2021)
Distrusting pharmaceutical companies != not taking any of their products under any circumstances.
You've heard of nuance!
Quoting jorndoe
Depends entirely on the circumstances, the severity of the disease in question, the urgency of the situation.
Why are you deliberately acting dumb, as if you couldn't possibly understand anything except all or nothing principles?
I have. So ...
Quoting Isaac
... wasn't a blanket statement? (Far from it, perhaps?)
Quoting Isaac
Explicit examples have been given.
No, that one was pretty much a blanket statement.
Quoting jorndoe
I can't think why you'd want to know about my personal judgements in that much detail, but (answers in bold)...
how distrusting would you be if you caught meningitis not very and/or syphilis no idea and/or rabies not very ? And a kid (of yours) depends on the pathogen? (Consulting immediately with the family doctor generally not immediately, no / whoever...
Your point is...?
Checking double standards.
Seems rather uncharitable. Why would you do that?
And good for almost everyone in any other area of life, including vaccination. But because this is a "big deal," in the age of polarization and social media, it's not enough for a good portion of society. Suddenly they become the experts -- overnight. They scan desperately for anything that justifies their stupid, stupid choices.
They will never be satisfied. They openly admit they will never change their minds.
NOS is well known as the forum idiot. Don't expect much consistency.
He reminds me of me when I was young. LOL! I want all the benefits of society but I don't want to contribute and you can't make me.
Then force is the only option on the table. Plain and simple.
Force by cancel culture consequences, ostracization. Don't want to play! Stay home.
Do you acknowledge your own fear? I personally accept that fear plays a role on both sides - do you?
No. I know many who got the shot for others, even with the alleged risk. I think it's an old school thing that many folks today just wouldn't understand.
Do you deny that you’re fearful of the virus?
Yes, I deny it, for me. I am concerned for others, but more from a civic duty standpoint. I'm no big fan of humanity in general, but this is not the hill to die on. And while I am not an expert, I roll the dice and bet on those who I think are experts.
I just don’t believe you. This is from one of your posts:
I’m not very afraid of this virus and so I can’t imagine speaking of it in that fashion.
I'm not afraid of the virus and my language is not evidence of fear. What is fearful about this: "I want to trade your will to spread your nasty, filthy germs with my will to not let you." I want to trade your will to shoot me with my will to not let you. It's a matter of will, not fear. DOH!
A matter of quashing someone’s perceived will to do something you’re afraid of.
Nope. I want to quash your will because you are a POS. Not because I'm afraid of a virus. You went back and looked through my posts so you obviously saw where my motivations are political, not scientific.
I’m a POS because you perceive me as doing something you’re afraid of, i.e. spreading my “nasty, filthy germs”.
No, again, didn't you read what I wrote? You are a POS because of your politics. You aren't afraid of the vaccine, or Covid, or needles. You just don't like the politics of or the people who support it. You're a hater. That makes you a POS.
I am afraid of the vaccine. I believe the accounts (because why shouldn’t I?) of blood clots, heart inflammation, blindness, cognitive difficulty and so on; these things scare me far more than the virus does.
I don't believe you. No one is that stupid.
My fear is acknowledged and controlled; this is why I haven’t gone in for the wilder theories. The fear we’re seeing from those of your persuasion appears to be unacknowledged and uncontrolled; this is what motivates the hostility.
You're not seeing fear from those of my persuasion. You're seeing push-back against the inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish BS of those of your persuasion. A parent doesn't fear and obstinate, petulant child.
Quoting AJJ
No, actually, it's not. You don't fear. Your just inconsiderate, disrespectful and selfish. If you had fear you'd get the shot.
.
There it is, clear as day.
Reading comprehension is not your strength.
Quoting AJJ
No kidding.
You’ve either been mislead or were an anti-vaxxer already. I’ll go with the latter.
Quoting AJJ
(1) None of that is remotely common, if it exists at all. So far there’s very little evidence to support such nonsense. You’re more likely to get stuck by lightning. So your fear is completely ridiculous.
(2) it’s not just about YOU, as will be repeated. I don’t give a damn about the virus— I probably had it already in February of 2020. This is largely about our COMMUNITY. Now I know that is also a scary thing for libertarian/republican fanatics, but it’s true.
Frustration and exhaustion of patience, for me.
I said if YOU had fear you'd get the shot. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?
You said you had fear but won't get the shot. I didn't say anything about me. I'm not afraid of the virus or the shot. You aren't either. You aren't afraid of the shot. Your just a POS.
There isn’t anything more to say about it.
Sure there is. You can admit you don't fear the virus or the shot. You aren't smart enough to know better than the CDC, et al. You just don't like the people who are politely asking you to step up. Go ahead, you'll feel better. It will be cathartic.
Quoting James Riley
Quoting James Riley
Quoting James Riley
Quoting James Riley
Quoting James Riley
If only 3% of the population have so far been infected and out of that 3% around 2% (the vulnerable) have died then how could it possibly be the case that most of the vulnerable are already dead? If the vulnerable are about 2% of the total population and only about 3% of the total population have been infected then we could expect perhaps 33 times the current death toll if we let it rip. And that doesn't account for the possibility that more virulent strains might arise.
I stand by all of that. You said you were afraid of the shot. It's you that said you are afraid, not me. I got the shot. I got it for people, because I was asked to step up for others You aren't smart enough to be afraid of the virus or the shot. You are just inconsiderate, disrespectful and selfish, aka a POS.
You can admit you don't fear the virus or the shot. You aren't smart enough to know better than the CDC, et al. You just don't like the people who are politely asking you to step up. Go ahead, you'll feel better. It will be cathartic.
https://apple.news/AZ9o4n8diRbO3WmWoxqjMdQ
Nothing to see here.
Seems like Daszak and Baric wanted to engineer a spike protein using bat viruses.
And all roads lead to Wuhan:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16110791/lancet-scientists-links-wuhan-research-report-says/
I spent some time last night thinking about our exchange and how I might better explain my feelings to someone who apparently has no sense of civics and can't wrap their head around the idea that someone might want to care about others. It reminded me of my youth and the men I looked up to.
I didn’t join the armed forces for any high ideals, but I did know older men who joined during WWII. And they did join with higher ideals. They were the men I learned from. They did not join because they were afraid of Nazis or Imperialist. They joined to kill Nazis and Imperialists. And they did it for others, not for themselves.
Now, once the bullets started flying, they acknowledged fear. They overcame it. But before that, in the joining, the training, they weren’t afraid of the enemy. They wanted to engage and kill the enemy.
Likewise for me, with Covid. I don’t fear Covid or the vaccine. Now, if I actually got Covid, or suffered a side affect from the vaccine, then there would be some fear. I would overcome it. But fear of Covid is not the reason I got the vaccine. I got it to protect others. My loved ones and friends. And because I was asked by people I trust more than the enemy.
I’m more afraid of stupid people than I am of Covid. Stupid people provide aid and comfort to the enemy; an enemy that could kill my loved ones and friends. The enemy is a known quantity. We can deal with it. But my own fellow humans that would aid and abet a virus, well, that's some scary shit right there.
I think narrating this situation as if it’s a war is a way for frightened people to consider themselves brave.
If you like I’ll at least consider that my characterisation of you is wrong if you do me the same favour.
I think you are wrong. I'm no fan of Trump but when he said he was a war-time President in a war against an invisible enemy, I think he had a point. After all, people have been calling this a "pandemic" and a pandemic is no normal disease situation. In fact, I think we even invoked some war-footing statutes that allowed the President to order private sector industries to start cranking out materials to aid in the fight. Whether or not he did a good job of it is another question.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with propaganda, but narrating this situation as a war is more likely to generate the fear you talk about, than it is to get people feeling brave. Perhaps that is why you say you are so afraid. Be brave, my little AJJ. Stand up and fight the virus! If you really are afraid (which I don't think you are; for if you were truly afraid, you would take the vax because the virus poses a much greater threat than the vaccine), then you overcoming your fear would truly make you brave. Guys like me aren't overcoming fear. You would be and that is the greatest courage.
I'm about as concerned with your characterization of me as I am of the virus. I'm fearful instead of your characterization of yourself and the threat it poses to others. You are either in denial and feigning fear, or you are lying. I think the latter. What you think of me is of no moment. If you like, I will tell the whole world that I cower under my bed all day in fear of Covid. LOL! That would be a lie, of course, but if it would get you to admit you don't want the vax because you are being a political, petulant, obstinate little child, then it would be worth it.
The virus poses me no greater risk than driving my car does (I expect it’s even less). If I bought into the war analogy it would be easy to feel brave against such a meagre threat.
Do you wear a seat belt?
Quoting AJJ
You just owned yourself. If it's not a war and not a threat, then it would be easy to be brave against such a meager threat. Be brave my little AJJ! Take the vax for your fellow man, not for yourself.
You’re not making sense.
Yes, I wear a seatbelt.
That's all the vax is; a seat belt.
And guess what? Seat belts, like helmets, aren't solely mandated because society cares about you. It's also to keep insurance premiums down, protecting others from the foolish risk-taking that you think affects only you.
Seatbelts don’t have side-effects.
The hell they don't. They interfere with my personal freedom and, like helmets, they are more inclined to leave you a vegetable than dead.
But never mind that. If we wanted to take a deep dive into their efficacy, we could. We could even lobby for changes in the law. But in the meantime, we wear them because it's the law. If people don't vax, it may very well become the law. And then we'll hear the real whining start.
Regardless, it has been proven, scientifically, that the threats of the vax are miniscule compared to Covid and the clogging of beds that could be used by others. Hell, the side affects of the flu vax, ibuporfin, a McDonald's Big Mac, booze, hot dogs, etc. are greater. Don't be a pussy. Be brave my little AJJ. You might get a fever, some chills, a sore arm. But it will pass. I got all that. Others I know suffered worse. But they did it. Watch the needle go into your arm, embrace the suck! Enjoy the horrendous risk you are taking against the odds in a cold cruel world. You are a hero, AJJ! Roll the dice! Look death in the face and say "GIVE ME THE VAX! I regret that I have but one pin prick to give for my fellow man!"
Quoting Lancet scientists who trashed Covid leak theory 'have links to Wuhan lab'
What if we, for the sake of argument, replace that ? quote with something like "which gave them a unique insight into the lab"?
So, starting out with suggesting they're honest, whereas the article starts out with suggesting they're dishonest, sort of like "innocent until proven guilty" I suppose.
Don't know what those scientists have said ("impartiality"), but the Sun article is quite circumstantial, conducive to one-sided speculation, insufficient to draw any conclusions.
That said, of course the Wuhan lab leak theory remains on the table, just not with the added thrust you suggest .
:100: Awesome. Words matter. If you say "we can and they can't" it has a whole 'nothing meaning than to say "we must and they don't have to." It would be great if folks could run around doing what you just did, showing how language matters. I wish I was better at it.
New Studies Find Evidence Of 'Superhuman' Immunity To COVID-19 In Some Individuals (Sep 7, 2021)
Haven't come across much on this line of research. Then again, the world is noisy.
We might fall between two stools or perhaps have the best of both worlds.
Spidey sense? But you're right, just assuming so was uncharitable.
If these people happen to be king and country, I will admit to disliking them.
Quoting jorndoe
or hypocrisy ...
Quoting Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
If it were a king, he might not ask. Hell, you can even dislike elected officials relying on experts but at least they are just asking politely. Actually, they are near begging.
Or just an imbecile. Which is much more likely, given the evidence.
:100:
What a cowardly little putz.
6 billion shots given; proven to be safe. Chances of any serious side effects smaller than the chances of winning Powerball— or the chances with any other vaccine. Yet still the idiocy prevails. Because it’s all about YOU, after all, not about the immunocompromised kid down the street, or the community at large (because what’s that?).
:100:
I wrote the above before reading this.
And yet Dr. Mondo lost a girl friend to the vax after Guido and Luca put a gun to her head and said "Job or jab you little twit." :roll:
Ah, good old anecdotes. The imbecile’s idea of “strong evidence.”
Yeah, and what are the odds we have a person right here on TPF who personally knows someone who died from the vax. Under threat of job loss, no less. We should all run out and buy a lottery ticket.
But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So, if the Covid patient died from being fat and not covid, then that vax-related death wasn't really from the vax. Doesn't count. Sorry. The doctor who said the vax killed her is part of a big conspiracy to undermine the vax and is paid by FAUX News.
That’s how it’s done. Excellent! I for one am convinced.
Hey, I just did my own research. I can criticize anything so I must have great critical thinking skills. :roll:
Only asking? Not commanding? In that case, it should not matter if some people take their choice and choose to decline.
Begging does nobody any good, it's pitiful at best. My dog begs too, its cute when she does it.
It's not fundamentally irrational to distrust governments or the pharmaceutical companies. I think government action in respect of Covid has been pretty shit in general.
In the Netherlands, thanks to this site, I argued for a lock down about 2 weeks before they implemented nation wide restrictions. That means people who's job it was to understand pandemics should've known even earlier. I assume they did, since the writing was on the wall by then and most likely politicians didn't listen because "the economy".
And then this summer when cases per citizen were higher than surrounding countries, the experts advised not to fully open up and the Netherlands being the god-damn most populous country in Europe, they fucking caved on the political pressure from a vocal minority and fully opened up. Predictably, that didn't end well. They then failed to take responsibility for it, which pisses me off even more and we went into lock-down again.
Then there was the wishy-washy communication on masks, which could've been avoided if they had simply said: "Masks work, we just need to prioritise them for front line healthcare workers, so the sale of them are banned until such time as the supply of PEP for front line workers is guaranteed. We've set up a special task force to but PEP." Instead of suggesting they're not effective.
Governments make decisions based on a variety of different social, economic and political interests and as we have seen, saving human lives is not their primary interest in most cases. The economy, e.g. those people who can buy influence and vote for status quo parties, are almost always prioritised and regular people pay the price. Normally that's just about taxes, this time it's about lives, which makes it especially egregious.
So yeah, I get the distrust, I just don't think it translates into having to distrust vaccinations. There's no particular reasons to distrust vaccines other than general distrust of governments and big pharma and that simply isn't evidence.
I think that in order to effectively handle a crisis, be it a medical one or a socio-economic one, or an ecological one, people first need to be in the clear about "the big existential issues" and have a definitive answer to the meaning of life question.
When, instead, they're just focusing on retaining the status quo, they'll sooner or later end up in the same or worse trouble.
Indeed, it isn't evidence, but it is cause for action, or in the case of those who don't get vaccinated, inaction.
Based on what do governments think that people should trust them?
Not just war torn regions. There was a scandal in Sweden where they vaccinated 6,000 people with stale Pfizer. It's not clear what came of that.
One of the reasons why I chose the Janssen vaccine was precisely this: since it can be stored at room temperature, there's less chance with something going wrong with it in this regard.
No, that's just a heuristic approach that you confuse with making a rational decision. There's an important difference. If I have bad experiences with Apple products, that's no reason to assume their next phone will be shit too. Those bad experiences are a reason to do proper research on the next phone whether the issues I had with previous versions are resolved or not. It's also doubtful my experience with their phones can be carried over to other product lines such as laptops and desktops.
Of course, I can also choose to categorically not but Apple products as a stand in for doing that research but that's not rational because it's quite possible their next phone is the one best suited to my needs.
?
Most people call their decision making "rational". In popular parlance, "rational" has a very different meaning than in academic philosophy.
I spoke of "causes for action" precisely to avoid this confusion.
There's different discussion to be had about the efficacy of policies in general and why Covid and not obesity and smoking and eating too much sugar and salt, etc. But those are still not reasons not to get a vaccination since the money has already been spend - your vaccine has been ordered.
Put down your pitchforks and clean your breeches folks.
There are citizens who act the way they act with little or no regard as to what the government does or tells them to do. Ie. for those citizens, trust in the government plays a minor role or none at all.
But then there is also a percentage of citizens (possibly a considerable one) for whom trust is the deciding factor. These are people who "in their heart of hearts" must feel that the government means well for them. Once such people come to distrust the government, this is a generalized distrust. If the government were to say 2 + 2 = 4, these people's first impulse would be not to believe it.
Sure, we can say that these people are irrational, that they are jumping to conclusions, and so on. That they rely on the government too much, that they are even childish and "can't think for themselves". But right now, this is irrelevant. For these people, trust is the primary heuristic, and that's how they function. Attempting to educate these people about vaccines is not going to make a difference, but it can make things even worse, it can strengthen their distrust of the government.
I think what could make a difference are long-term citizenship programs where people are taught to be professional citizens, which includes having a significantly less emotional attitude toward the government, feeling less like a subject or less like a child toward the government. But this, of course, takes time and effort.
I totally agree that it makes little to no difference telling people they are irrational. I do think it helps, if you're intent on changing minds, to understand the "heuristic" isn't a rational decision making process. Rational arguments aren't going to convince many as is clear with respect to the entrenched positions even on a board like this where rational thinking is presumably above average.
And your plan takes too long for the issue at hand. And it's true for both sides in a way. Assuming pro-vaxxers are right, what's the best way to go about convincing anti-vaxxers? Assuming anti-vaxxers are right, what's the best way to go about convincing pro-vaxxers?
Pro-vaxxers have a heurestic too, where the most used one is "scientific consensus". Even that is posited as a rational decision making process but it really isn't. But since most people tend to agree with the fact it's a pretty good heurestic they don't get challenged on it.
A start to at least get a meaningful conversation going is that both sides realise they've not rationally arrived at their position, unless they're expert epidemiologists or virologists and some doctors, and stop assuming only the other is irrational.
A question could be, what makes a good heuristic decision making process and why? Maybe that can take the conversation further, I don't know.
As I've explained all along, my truck with them is political. I don't see their issue as fear or suspicion or lack of trust. They won't vax because they hate who's asking and because they've been told not to by those who hate whose asking. It's political. They hate me for my politics, I hate them for their politics. Simple as that. They are disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish, obstinate, petulant anti-social brats. When they go low, I go with them.
Yes, only asking. Not commanding . . . . yet. It's like a mother pleading with her child to get in the back seat and put on the seat belt. You might think begging is like your dog but your dog is not going to lose his patience with you if you keep being a POS. Eventually there will be commands. And then we have to listen to the wailing. That is if we haven't lost the war already, thanks to these children. In that case, they've killed a lot of people.
P.S. So you think it's cute when government begs you to get a shot and save you life and that of others? Are your politics showing?
And then we do live in democratic countries, where people can and will have their own ideas. Some countries more than others.
Even here in law abiding Finland, where of the population over 12 years old over 80% have gotten the first shot and 69% have gotten the second shot has been given to the majority of people. Yet even from the 65+ age cohort still just slightly over 91% - 93% have been vaccinated. So I guess that every tenth likely won't get a shot. The government has an objective to have 4/5 of the population having two shot vaccinations and rest there. To get higher, you would have to really forcing people to get vaccinations.
Most good plans are like that. People at large have allowed themselves to be lulled into a false sense of safety, and this is not something that can be remedied easily.
I think that at this point, it's too late for convincing, too late for talking, too late for discussion. At this point, the only effective course of action seems to be to make vaccination and other sanitary measures mandatory, perhaps even enforce martial law.
This is a lot to expect even from academics, what to speak of ordinary people!
That conversation would take time, space, a period of peace with no crises, medical or otherwise.
People generally aren't used to function well under pressure; and even when they are, it's with the aim to get from under that pressure into a relaxed, "normal" way of being.
Perhaps, like the US Navy SEALs, we should all train under the motto "The only easy day was yesterday".
That's ... aiming rather high (unless I misunderstand, which is entirely possible).
There are historical/textbook case studies, and (cumulative) evidence, all that stuff, that we can learn from, we'd be fools not to.
Seems relevant for a functional society where all kinds of different people interact, yes?
Some recommend a bit more than 1m, but, anyway...
That's too bad. Good thing its all speculation.
Quoting James Riley
Save my life and the life of others? Don't be so dramatic.
And what makes you think I give two fucks about saving lives? I'm simply content in not intentionally ending lives, I always do my part in refraining from murder and other forms of unnecessary killing, without fail. Did you know that there are numerous categories of people whose live's needed saving before covid, and continue to need saving today? If I were concerned about saving lives, the first ones I'd try to save would be Arab children getting blown up by the US war effort. But nobody gives a fuck about those people. It's a lot easier to feel righteous by obsessing about covid fatalities. For me, covid fatalities are at the bottom of the list of lives that need to be saved.
I think its cute when a dog begs. I think its pathetic when the state begs. In my opinion, if the state is a democratic republic, then it should ask and respect the choices of its people and deal with the consequences; if it is despotic, then it should command its people, and purge noncompliers with great predjudice. What is so hard about that?
You appear to favor the latter mode of statehood, no doubt you would thrive under it. Perhaps my politics are showing...you tell me.
Tell that to the folks who lost loved ones who could not access a bed.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I'd argue that, but then it was followed by this:
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
And that explains it.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I know, right? And some of them can't get a bed.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Okay, so you side with the virus; killer of millions. Got it.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Exercise a little situational awareness and you'll see what's so hard about that.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
If it were then I wouldn't be supporting the asking, and fearing the tools who could give a shit about others.
Oh how objective and fair you are.
When people start speaking irrationally, ignoring evidence, and otherwise start talking like Alex Jones, there's no point in pretending to have a rational conversation. That has nothing to do with empathy.
Also, I think it's completely irrational to think you can convince them otherwise by hugging them to death. If anti-vaxxers have proven anything, in general, it's that they're completely immovable in their position. If you want to keep fighting the good fight, fine. I've spent hours responding to them, in fact -- but I owe them no politeness when they drop their manners.
It isn't my problem that there are not enough beds. If you're so concerned, donate your bed?
Quoting James Riley
Quoting James Riley
Yes, it explains clearly. You prefer the indescriminate blowing up of Arab children, I prefer covid fatalities.
Did you know that children are far less susceptible to severe infection from covid than are other age groups? I guess that means I care about the lives of children more than you.
Yes, it explains it clearly.
Quoting James Riley
I am, if I see the situation to be a democratic state, I expect it to serve its people.. If I see a despotic state, I expect the people to serve it. You see, very simple.
Quoting James Riley
This is probably news to you, but not everyone is so needy, there are multitudes of people that do not want others to give a shit about them, especially strangers they will never meet. Looks like you don't give a shit about those people...so much for your universal benevolence
It is absolutely a rational choice, which is obvious in every aspect of our lives. Why? Because there is no possible way to become an expert in everything. We have to trust car companies, engineers, mechanics, drug makers, farmers, pharmacists, doctors, lawyers, historians, scientists, etc. -- all the time.
Regarding this particular scenario, given all this trust, it's a perfectly rational choice to trust experts, particularly when a large majority of them are in agreement.
Could this rational choice end up being wrong at times? Yes. Likewise if you "did your own research" for weeks about a topic, weighed evidence, collected data, ran experiments yourself, and held symposia about it in your living room.
We operate on incomplete information, and have to make the best decisions (given our goals) on the basis of this information. Trusting the scientific and medical consensus when you cannot devote your life to becoming an expert yourself is a rational choice indeed.
It will be your problem if you or a loved one need a bed. I donated mine by getting a vax.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I don't prefer either, but there is one I can do something about and I did it. You know, the one with more numbers.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
What have you done for those Arab kids? Did you get a shot so you could better be there for them? If so, good. Nobody is likely to be able to help your kids if they can't take a few minutes out of their life for a free shot.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Actually you are not. If you had situational awareness you would have seen the answer to your own question: The difficulty for the state is people like you. Can the state fix stupid?
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Your reasoning fails. I don't give a shit about those who do not want others to give a shit about them. Fuck them. I give a shit about those who do care, and who will be killed by the former.
Speaking of kids:
Edit: I'm not saying it's a bad heuristic and that you shouldn't employ it, I'm merely pointing out that it's not rational. And if you understand that, you can imagine that such a heuristic fundamentally cannot work fit someone who has general distrust. So repeating "but the scientific consensus" means absolutely nothing for those who think "but the government is evil". You trust the consensus, they distrust anything the government promotes. Nobody is talking about the same thing at that point.
Of course it is. Not only is it rational, it's also a complete necessity in life. You're confusing trust and faith, I think. There's very good reasons for trusting -- for trusting medicine, science, expertise, family, friends, etc. It's not about blind faith -- it's about the simple fact that we cannot possibly know or do everything ourselves, especially with limited time.
Quoting Benkei
Now you're confusing what I'm saying with a kind of gambler's fallacy. That doesn't apply at all to expertise. If someone has proven over and over again to be an honest person, there's all the reason in the world to trust them. Could it be the case that they suddenly become a completely different person and fuck you over? Yes. Was it therefore irrational to trust them? Of course not.
I agree. But it is rational to trust the rational, and to distrust the irrational. Just because one lacks the skill sets to be among the rational, does not mean one lacks the skill sets to distinguish between the rational and irrational.
Apparently the rational people say the 100th time you jump off the cliff will generate a result identical to the other 99. They don't say that because of the odds. That would be irrational. Rather, they say it because they've studied gravity, physics, etc. The irrational say "Meh, maybe the result will be different."
It's not irrational to trust the rational.
Damn right! It will be my problem, not yours or anybody else's. And even though we are vaxxed, that is no guarantee we won't need "a bed" someday.
Quoting James Riley
Quoting James Riley
Don't worry about me, whether or not i got vaxxed. Mind your own business before you get stepped on foo.
Anyway. Let me get this strait...you say you did something about covid, and nevertheless, there are more fatalities... sounds like you didn't do much. I have done nothing to stop the bombing of Arab children, and as you say, there are less fatalities than with covid....seems that my strategy is more effective here.
Anyway, Arab children in the middle east are more likely to die from a bomb than covid. The real question you should be asking is: did those children get their free shot so they don't put me at risk? Personally, I respect their right to choose, rather than imposing upon them with my fear.
Quoting James Riley
You are obviously a born servant the state. You would have made a great Nazi.
Quoting James Riley
But you do. You care very much about those people who don't want concern from others. It is obvious from your posts here. If you didn't, you would respect the individual's right to choose rather than getting so butt-hurt about people declining the vaccine. After all, if you and your loved one's have all been vaccinated, then you all are not at risk from the nonvaxxed, and there is no need to be concerned over anyone's health, right?
Quoting James Riley
Hey, its Russell Crow!
It will be if you are taking up a bed I want for my friends or loved ones. It ain't all about you.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Especially since so many unvaxxed, non-masking, non-distancing people are spinning up variants; not to mention the dolts that vax but throw shade on vaxxing.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Keep your filthy fucking virus out of other people's lives and we're good. Until then, it is my business, fool.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I go the shot, I mask, I distance. And nevertheless there are more fatalities because the stupid people say stupid people have rights to be stupid people.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I think you just owned yourself. Okay.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Nobody cares about you.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
:rofl:
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Your reasoning fails you. Re-read what you just said. Think. Try harder.
Oh, and there is this: Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
You're stepping on your own dick. Slow down. Think.
Really? What are you gonna do? whine about it on TPF.
Quoting James Riley
Oh no! Variants, so scary!
Guess what else? Fuck your vaccine, I piss on it.
Quoting James Riley
I'll make you a deal, ill keep "your filthy fucking virus" out of other people's lives, if you keep all your fascist bullshit in your spiteful little skull.
Quoting James Riley
Good for you, you want a cookie?
Quoting James Riley
Momma always said: "stupid is as stupid does". ~Forest Gump
Quoting James Riley
I've always owned myself, unlike you, who has been own by others since birth. I am owning you right now in fact.
Quoting James Riley
Good. I can care about myself just fine.
Quoting James Riley
My reasoning stands, otherwise you would have been specific in pointing out where it fails. But you know, we both know, that if you analyze my reasoning here, it will shine a bright light on the gaping hole in your little vax obsession.
I'll rip the fucking vent out of your mouth and throw you ass out the nearest window and make the doc tend a deserving human being. How's that? :rofl: Or maybe I'll do what you've done for the Arab kids. Nothing. :rofl:
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
It's not my vaccine. Well, except that which is in me. Try pissing on that and see what you get.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Deal.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
You asked, I answered. Don't want the answer, don't ask.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Momma was right.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I know. You make a fool of yourself all the time.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Not with that moronic shit you aren't. You're owning yourself.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Try caring about others.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
So you re-read what you said and didn't see it? LOL! No wonder we can't fix stupid.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
You say that if I didn't care about those who don't care about others then I would respect their right to choose. WTF? Why would I respect the rights of anyone I don't care about? Your words. Jeesh.
Then you say the vaxxed are not at risk from the non-vaxxed, right after you said:
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
DOH! They are called pass through or variants. Jeesh. Take a seat.
Yes, the fatalities and hospitalizations are overwhelming among the unvaccinated -- causing problems in hospitals, and allowing the virus to continue to mutate into more severe forms. If you've missed that, you haven't been paying attention -- or you simply don't want to know.
:100: :up:
You're a better man than me. I'm going to cede the floor and ban myself for a couple of weeks for unprofessional behavior. I'd say "Hold down the fort" but that might be a curse. :rofl:
Adios, amigos.
You obviously can't read. I was only talking about your concern for people who "don't want your concern". Also, just because they don't want concern from others, it doesn't necessitate that they don't care about others themselves. You are really confused, poor lil' fella.
Quoting James Riley
I didn't say it, I asked it. Here, I'll ask it again: if you and your loved one's have all been vaccinated, then you all are not at risk from the nonvaxxed, and there is no need to be concerned over anyone's health, right?
You people really just don't understand, do you?
This is not an individual thing. This is a collective thing. Community -- you've heard of that word, yes? This is why we should care that everyone is being vaccinated unless, of course, they want to isolate themselves from society, which is their choice.
The vaccinated can still get breakthrough cases, and some who want a vaccine can't get one. I'm vaccinated, and I'm not afraid of the virus. That means exactly NOTHING when discussing vaccination. We should all get vaccinated -- they're safe, they're effective, and they help stop the spread. 6 billion shots given around the world, 100s of millions of people fully vaccinated. Serious side effects? Extremely rare -- better odds of getting hit by lightning.
If you want to remain ignorant, fine. But the excuses don't work, and patience is running out. People who want to quit their jobs over this -- good, do so. Tough shit. It's not just about you.
"You people", lol. Just so we are clear, to what people do you think I belong?
Quoting Xtrix
It's an individual thing to individuals. "Community"? Yes, specifically the way you use the term, I noticed it when I was reading about slave morality.
Quoting Xtrix
I disagree. Rather, if you think going out into society is a risk to your health and life, then YOU can choose to dig into your den of cowardice and stay put. Stop encroaching on other people's lives with your cowardice, man up.
Quoting Xtrix
Ok. And your point is...what exactly?
Btw...Your hope for the indiscriminate vaccination of everybody on earth is very naive. How can everyone get vaccinated, if as you say, "some who want a vaccine can't get one"? Personally, I support peoples right to get the vax if they choose, its too bad they cannot get it if they want it.
Quoting Xtrix
Wow, you are really spiteful, wishing ill on people...Talk about ignorance. Just like that Riley fella. I definitely do not want to be affiliated with you people. I think I'll start referring to your kind as "vaxscists"- provaxxers with fascist attitudes
Well apparently you belong to the people that believe that:
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
If cowardice is the opposite of bravery, are you doing something brave? Can you describe that?
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
So your judgement on male cowardice is final? Can you see no other virtues to redeem them?
If a theory is predictive then it is presumed correct until it is falsified.
Scientists are trustworthy.
Therefore the theory is correct.
:chin:
The pleasure that people get from accusing another to be irrational, evil, bad, weak, etc. should not be underestimated.
To ask them to give up that pleasure, you'd need to offer them something in return. What do you have in mind?
A "high aim"? No, a most basic one.
So we can do what? Remain on autopilot? Eat, drink, and make merry? This is supposed to be the whole point of life?
No. Truth trumps diversity.
When making decisions about one's own body, there isn't a need for one's arguments to be understood as rational anyway.
That changes when one starts projecting one's emotions on the outside world and expect others to live by the same chains as oneself.
Quoting Tzeentch
A non-rational argument is a contradiction in terms so I have no clue whatsoever what your point is.
Obviously decisions about your body need to be weighed against the interest of others if those decisions have consequences for others and once you reached a conclusion you'll have to argue for it. And your decisions can also have consequences. You're free to drink, but you don't get to drive. You're welcome to walk around naked, just not in public.
Indeed, because according to the constitutions of many countries, one's body is by default considered private and granted the right to exist.
Quoting Benkei
Legally, this is actually quite a tricky area. Because in order to argue for or against, one has to take into account what the constitution and the laws of one's country say. This way, one quickly ends up in problems that even professional constitutional lawyers have difficulty to be unanimous about.
If you don't get caught, who can say that you didn't have the freedom to do those things?
So bodily integrity is only a right that can be granted by governments? Interesting.
Quoting baker
You're always free to break the law. But we generally agree it is opportunistic to do so as those breaking the law are only too happy to get all the protections a well organised state offers. This is why ndividuals generally cannot be the arbiter of law (only state sanctioned individuals, e.g. judges) even though there are extreme cases where norms ought to precede laws and therefore require civil disobedience.
In that respect I consider mandatory vaccinations for specific services/industries a curious hill to want to die on.
As things stand, every human on the planet is subject to some government, so, yes. (Even those people who don't have citizenship; and there is, on principle, no no-man's land, so that wherever on planet Earth someone is, one is always under someone's jurisdiction.)
If the State truly is as powerful and as authoritative as it says it is, then why does it catch only some of those who break the law?
It's this discrepancy between the proposed authority of the State and its actual effectiveness that gives reason to doubt its authority.
There is an unwritten social norm that we shall all respect the State and consider it authoritative, even though it quite frequently fails to deliver. This is the weakest link in the system. Whose fault is it when this weakest link is exploited? The State's or the individual person's?
You've accused me of not being able to read in the past. :chin:
Quoting Benkei
My decision to get vaccinated or not, does not hold any direct consequences for anyone but myself.
Really? Putting aside for now your judgement about the facts of the case right now, can you really not see a problem with creating a system whereby a government and/or a private corporation can inject the entire population of their country with a chemical which is only intermittently batch tested?
The thing is, we already know the answer (at least for the left) because when utilities were privatised we were up in arms. The idea of letting a private, profit-making company clean and distribute our water was an abomination. Same with health, same with housing, same with every basic human need... except prophylactic medicine, apparently, where the left are not only happy to hand over control to a private corporation, but then spend the majority of their time doing their fucking advertising for them.
These corporations are criminals. Actually convicted of criminal acts. They spend four times more on lobbying than any other industry. They lie, cheat, pay off government oversight, and show callous disregard for human life (you should read some of the emails in the opioid cases). And they're now in charge of a medical procedure you'd campaign to have extended to whole world.
I struggle to think of a more important hill to die on than keeping the well-being of the entire population of the world out of the hands of a criminal profiteering enterprise.
Best to call it out for what it is: authoritarianism. The left's version has always been will to power masquerading as philanthropy. Offer a moral pretense to soothe the conscience and these people will happily forfeit all your rights for the thinnest of perceived benefits, but mostly to pat their own back.
Sure, according to some anyway, but not particularly decidable/determinable like the medical matters are. I seem to remember posts/threads about this stuff here on the forums.
Quoting baker
I meant this
Quoting jorndoe
is relevant to
Quoting jorndoe
Is the "meaning of life" thing (universally) truth-apt? This is the sort of thing where (some) people find whatever, and people have found whatever for centuries, and they all still haven't shown the one true "purpose of life". Unlike the tangible medical matters where we've learned lots, where nature has taught us and keep doing so.
Quoting baker
Life is not a means to some (other) end.
Quoting paraphrasing the good Doc Emmett Brown
If anything in particular, the "purpose of life" is living (it). Enjoy. :up:
"Back to the regularly scheduled program." ? :)
Quoting Benkei
Trust is the currency of all social interaction. Trust, in the guise of 'confidence', is the foundation of the economy, and trust is the prerequisite for communication and meaningful language.
Let me put it this way: I do not have a laboratory, or even a microscope, so I have never seen a virus. Any research I do consists of reading other people's accounts of what they have done and what happened. That there is a new disease at all is based on reports; that people have died of it is based on reports, the disease model is based on reports.
So I think you go too far, and not far enough. If trust isn't ever rational, then nothing is ever rational but what one sees with one's own eyes. Perhaps I can adapt Wittgenstein a little and suggest that distrust and trust are on a par, and equally need some, but not absolute, justification. There is, alas, good reason to distrust governments and medical companies, in the record of lies and bullshit that they have promulgated over the years. It is clear that the truth is not as high on their priorities list as their self-interest.
It should be. It comes down to this: if society does not value the truth it disintegrates. A century of moral nihilism has brought us here, to where the truth is simply unavailable, and talk has almost no value. Thus the thread does little but allow some emotional venting. If trust is irrational, then no one should rationally believe anything another says or posts, and we cannot talk at all.
No, I'm not doing anything noteworthy. Bravery and cowardice only come into play when an individual perceives the threat of danger. I perceive no threat, so I can be neither cowardly nor courageous in this case.
Quoting Monitor
What was that judgment again? Out of the four classic virtues (wisdom, courage, moderation and justice) I can see a poor attempt at moderation.
:100:
For folks who distrust their government very very much, I know of a few places without any serious government. Somalia is one, Afghanistan another. I've traveled there extensively so I know people and the way in and out. For 10,000 bucks -- a bargain -- I can accompany any and all of the distrusters to a remote Afghan valley and introduce them to the locals. For that money, I can also sign a certificate that the pharmaceutical industry yields very little influence over there, deep in the Hindukush. Alternatively, the Juba valley in Southern Somalia offers well protected shores from the reach of any bad bad western government and pharma, thanks to them Al Shabad boys.
I can offer a discount for Somalia, because Al Shabad pays well for western hostages.
Too bad you didn't make this offer when Trump was in office, I'm sure you would have made a fortune.
The only thing I've argued for is that people understand that they are not being rational but employing a heuristic here on both sites. Hell, the assumption that we can trust each other is a heuristic itself. It works most of the time so it's fine until that trust is damaged. It's not rational to trust anyone but that doesn't mean it's a sensible starting point in most situations. That's why heuristics work but we shouldn't confuse the fact that they work with it being a rational decision making process.
And here we have two different heuristics resulting in opposing viewpoints with respect to vaccination: everything the government and Big pharma push cannot be trusted and we should trust the scientific consensus.
It's like interlocutors are arguing from within different paradigms. That the scientific consensus is that vaccination is safe is simply not a counterargument to "I don't trust the government". So people are speaking at cross purposes.
Quoting Tzeentch
What's an argument that doesn't need to be understood rationally? How's that still an argument?
Quoting baker
... kind of reminded me of ...
Quoting Sagan
:)
(nothing further to see here, move along)
[sup](If you want to go on a killing spree, then please leave others out of it. If you want to drive drunk, then please stick to your backyard. ...)[/sup]
This is why apple pies are so expensive.
I'm suggesting that it is a moral imperative. I'm suggesting that rationality cannot exist without trust. I'm suggesting that we are social beings before there can be any question of our being rational or irrational beings. I'm suggesting that reason is and ought to be only the slave of passion.
What's your point?
Quoting jorndoe
That's random. Why are you whispering?
Love me some deep state :wink:
If only we could spike pie with the vaccine, the world would be vaccinated in no time
Among the anti-vaxxer crowd. Or just plain staunchly ignorant.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
You're too stupid to understand, I realize, but it's not about fear -- and it's not about me.
Your ignorance doesn't trump public health. Which is why the states are stepping in and mandating vaccines. Take a look at New York. So you go ahead and "disagree" all you want -- it matters not.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
:rofl:
Apparently the point is not to talk to imbeciles.
How you got this out of what I said, I have no idea. But I have no real beef with you generally. My point was simply that it can be rational to trust people (including experts) if there's good evidence to do so. I'm not arguing in favor of blind faith.
Awww...everybody look, xtrix is upset because I don't agree with him.
Nice response, xtrix, I bet you walk around in pissy underwear with yellow stains. You should really try defending your position instead of crying and whining like a little bitch.
Answer...or cower in defeat! The choice is yours
I disagree. There are plenty of situations where mutual trust is absent and we're still possible to navigate out of those situations. Almost every negotiation starts without trust. Your negotiation partner can lie about all sorts of things like pricing, lead times, capabilities, quality etc., and magically we still manage.
Not true. Aztecs? Iroquois? Africans?
But I don't care about that. I really want to know what mr. unenlightened means when he says: Quoting unenlightened
Read this thread and tell me he wasn't right.
We could put it in the payloads of some missiles and bomb Texas with it.
You can distrust your negotiation partner because you have a trusted social world. Start with global social distrust and you will see that you are deprived of language entirely. This too is a lie, or might (as) well be.
It's from Hume. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotions-17th18th/LD8Hume.html
To put it very crudely, if one does not have a passion for truth, reason has no function. My modern translation of 'passion' is 'giving a fuck'.
David Lewis agrees.
But I have to say, I'm beginning to feel a bit hamstrung by this:
Quoting unenlightened
On the one hand, we who live in open societies tend to be pretty hands-off with other people's "values." The word we use these days for people who have ideas about other people's values is "Taliban."
Socrates and Confucius both lived in inegalitarian monocultures (not really, I know) with official religions. Maybe they are just particularly charming members of a Taliban. But maybe our conception of reason is too narrow; maybe there is a way to broaden our conception of reason to encompass wisdom again. To some of us, who take this instrumental view of reason, the natural temptation has been to fill the gap with more formalisms (more logic, more game theory, more Darwin -- we have a lot more tricks than Kant did), but is that the best we can do? (I know you are not so tempted, which is why I'm asking.)
@ssu recently posted an interview with John McWhorter in which he argues that "wokeness" is a religion. I find his view pretty persuasive but still disheartening. I want something between crying "Heretic!" and calling for public floggings, on the one hand, and "Well, Mr. Nazi, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that." I mean, most of us do live in between, but we think we just happen to, that we do so because "these are our values" and other people not in the middle "just don't share our values." That's been turning out lately not to be particularly solid ground to stand on.
What do we do, un?
and @unenlightened, if you're at all interested.
This is what I was arguing on the other thread, but the stats clearly did not go down well. Nonetheless, I think stats can help us here.
When you stratify a sample over a variable, that variable loses some of its relative influence over the variance within the stratification cohort.
So we might stratify our community over some variable like 'reasonableness', into classes - {completely unreasonable}, {perfectly reasonable}, {very reasonable}. We could use 'degree of reasonableness' to eliminate one group from our trust, but once we've done that, 'degree of reasonableness' loses some of its power to explain the variance, so we needn't then continue to apply it within that cohort - we can afford a bit more 'live and let live'.
We've not sacrificed a passion for truth because we used it thoroughly to eliminate the classes within our stratified population, but once that's done, it's served its purpose, it's no longer particularly useful within the remaining classes, and other, more personal factors can take over.
Let's be good: be honest and trustworthy; be kind and helpful; be generous and forgiving. It's very old-fashioned, but there really is no other way. I think the social tradition for a few thousand years has been to try to impose solidarity by the power of violence and threat, and there seems no other way to impose it. But it is a nonsense of course. Solidarity naturally arises when there is no attempt to impose it, and every attempt to impose it creates more division.
I'm not at all clear what you are saying. I am saying that we are inescapably social and interdependent - we have to trust or die alone. Therefore we have to have a moral commitment to the truth, or die alone. I am saying that if we continue to valorise "rational self-interest" we will all die alone.
Trust isn't special. Lack of trust makes the news. The Russians can't be trusted. We may have to bomb them. It's dramatic.
We can't trust the government. That's rich drama. Since the government is our own super identity, it's like saying we can't trust the Pope, and this is an old drama. Very old
(y) That's also why starting out with or campaigning distrust and Us-versus-Them narratives can be degenerative. It's in the toolbox of divide-and-conquerors.
Quoting Tzeentch
I guess democracies better choose their tyrants carefully, eh? :) Unless ... (more or less by definition) leaders are tyrants ...?
Seems contagious.
Quoting unenlightened
Yeah, but we also want to be able to not trust, no? We don't want to have to just swallow whatever we're told, charitable to the very end, we need to be able to distrust those deserving of such distrust.
On the other side of the coin, we don't want to measure every idea only by it's utility to our 'passionate pursuit of the truth'. That becomes pointless because of underdetermination, we virtually never have the data we need to measure everything that way and other heuristics have to come into play.
The stats just shows why.
As ever...
Quoting unenlightened
...just becomes nothing more than a stick to beat one's enemies with - "see, it's they who are not committed to the truth,
not like us, who care for nothing more..."
That's hilarious. Do you have anything for an encore?
Goodbye, and good riddance (Leonard Pitts Jr; Sep 26, 2021)
Perfect!
A few more of those and you'll soon have that pesky Us-versus-Them narrative firmly put to bed. Keep up the good fight.
Covid-19 in Wales: A third of positive cases are unvaccinated (Sep 24, 2021)
Worth quoting:
I cringed when I read that. “The government has always taken your freedom so you should not be angry when it takes more”. You cannot smoke in theatres or drive without a seatbelt, therefor you should let the government mandate your medical decisions, is not the first but one of the more ridiculous appeals to tradition I’ve ever seen. I wish I could scrub it from my memory, but then again this type of reasoning is the norm.
You know, if you need more freedom, you could just move a few hundred miles north. No one would bother you.
I’m moving 600 miles north next spring. No matter: I suspect you’ll defend the paternalism long beyond then. Perhaps forever?
I'm not defending anything. Just advising that you need to move to the frontier to gain more freedom. Sounds like you'll be doing that?
But the covid vaccines are not actually being made mandatory, in the actual legal sense of the word.
On principle, a medication that legally has the status of merely an experimental medication cannot be made mandatory. A medication has to pass a long vetting process before it can move up from being merely an experimental medication, and again there is a vetting process before it can be made mandatory by law.
Do you know, for a fact, what the legal status of the covid vaccinations is in countries that are reported to have made it mandatory for some professions?
Do you know, for a fact, that the US, France, Greece, and some others have actually passed a law according to which covid vaccinations are mandatory (for some professions)?
Or is it the case that in those countries, covid vaccinations are demanded by government decree (which is less than a law), or they found a roundabout way to enforce covid vaccinations?
To the best of my knowledge, people who were fired or suspended for not getting a covid vaccination were fired or suspended _not_ on account of violating a health law, but on account of a much more general principle (failure to comply with the demands of the employer).
The problem is that we are not living under the rule of law, but under the rule of quasi-legal misnomers and legal loopholes.
The governments are actually encouraging us to be ignorant of the law, and it is to our harm.
But we are not actually being legally coerced into anything.
The pressure to get vaccinated against covid is informal; there is no legal foundation for it, or it's questionable. The governments have let the pressure trickle down into interpersonal relationships and into the relationship between employer and employee.
Legally, we are merely recommended to get vaccinated. Nothing more. The state is protecting itself and pharmaceutical companies from liability issues.
If the covid crisis really is as bad as the government etc. are wanting us to believe that it is, then why aren't they passing laws commensurate to it?
Yesterday in Slovenia, a 20-year old woman died after complications from getting vaccinated with the Janssen vaccine. The government temporarily stopped offering this vaccine.
And now some very ugly things are coming to the fore:
Since vaccination is merely recommended, not mandatory, the government is not liable and cannot and will not pay any restitution to those damaged by the vaccine. People damaged by the vaccine have no grounds for a lawsuit. It's still not clear whether insurance covers the costs of the medical treatment for the side effects of the vaccine or not.
"Vaccination is recommended but not mandatory" is the line that a member of the government's covid task force used when commenting on the case of the dead young woman.
One would think that if the vaccines are so safe and effective as the government loves to say that they are that the government would put their money where their mouth is and boldly declare to pay restitution for anyone damaged by the vaccine (resting safely in the assumption that it will never actually come to that, given that the vaccines are so safe and effective). But no. When push comes to shove, like when people get permanent health damage from the vaccine or even die from it, the government calls on the "Vaccination is recommended but not mandatory" line.
This is what is so disgustingly subversive and underhanded in the whole matter.
For example, those that are based on appeal to conscience or common decency.
There is a striking similarity between zealous religious preachers and the vocal pro-vaccers.
People are getting strokes from the covid vaccines, they are dying from the covid vaccines.
What do you have to offer to the survivors and their close ones?
Yes, it's driven by the polemicism of social media I think. People didn't use to be able to identify an enemy quite so clearly and find such unbridled support so easily. It drives people to extremes because the badges for these groups are so singular and clear that people have the confidence to push further.
It's like every group is as simple as stamp collectors. It's easy to know what to do to get rewarded in such a group - get more stamps. There's no complexity so people just push for more and more stamps confident that at no time will any of their peers turn round and say "that's way too many stamps, what are you doing!".
What makes it worse is that most of the interaction takes place in a text medium, black on white, so there is no danger of mishearing or misremembering something.
The text is there for one to carefully read it and reference it.
Like they did to cover up 9/11 and to make us believe in their holocaust, right?
They are not simply rare freak cases. There are many more of them. It's that once a negative side effect of a vaccine is officially added to the list of the vaccine's negative side effects, they stop counting individual instances of it.
Why do you think they make a point of publishing on the news that such and such has been added to the official list of the vaccine's negative side effects?!
That's not true, (he says getting out his big stick and beating Issac mercilessly.) Rather, I have no stick, and the truth is not a sword either. I am committed to truth, and communication. If no one else is, I'm fucked anyway, but that is the only thing that I can make sense of. Someone who does not have that commitment becomes part of the uncommunicative world, not an enemy - like a lion, maybe, or a virus or an advert.
I might be lying about this of course, because people do, and I really mean that; you might need to keep that possibility in mind.
My imagination must be failing me because this seems obvious to you but I cannot think of something still being an argument without it also following either a deductive or inductive structure. If that's absent I think you have a command or a statement but not an argument.
Quoting baker
I'm not sure whether they are experimental. What makes you say that? They passed regular approval processes in the EU as far as I know; at an unprecedented speed sure, but their approval is legally no different than that for other vaccinations. mRNA vaccines are, as I understood from an explanation from doctors in the Netherlands, inherently safer than previous vaccines because the injected substance quickly decomposes in the body.
Quoting baker
Decrees are laws too. Just because some authority has been delegated does not make it any less the law. Otherwise a policeman wouldn't have the authority to require you to stop, for instance. And while the US is inflicted with paralysis in its legislative body resulting from its polarised two-party system, there is definitely a worrying degree of "rule by decree". I guess that's what you get if you push a unitary theory of executive power for decades. It seems to me the GOP is quite happy with a tyrant as a President as long as its their tyrant. But all this is, I think, a different discussion than for this
Quoting unenlightened
Not what I have disagreed with though. Trust is irrational - that doesn't mean trust is indispensable to a functioning of society at large. My point is and has been that quite a few posters think they are offering an argument when in fact they are not offering one. If my heuristic results in a conclusion then that's all well and good but if it isn't shared by my interlocutor it means little to them. If I just repeat the heuristic rule "trust the scientific consensus" then it doesn't have any argumentative force. It's of course immediately persuasive to those that have the same heuristic.
So if you want to convince the other party, you need to understand their heuristic. If that's "I don't trust the government and big pharma" you'll have to figure out why. And when you have the why, you can perhaps explore whether that distrust is appropriate in this particular case, and if so whether that distrust, which avoids a certain risk, outweighs the risk of following up on that distrust. At the very least we'll have a conversation instead of how we're talking at cross purposes now.
Does it decompose quickly in the body? Would that necessarily make it safer? Have you not essentially made an appeal to a scientific consensus here?
Hmm. So you're doing that on this thread? Having a conversation with the anti-vaxers? I must have missed it.
What I am describing is the condition under which conversation is impossible. It is a psychological condition of radical distrust. It is actually impossible to sustain, and therefore results in a fixation on the most off the wall explanation - illuminati lizards or whatever global conspiracy, and anything you might say already has the ready explanation that you are either a dupe of the conspiracy, or part of the conspiracy. The conspiracy theory is heuristic if you like, but it functions more like a cult religion.
I suspect that this statement is just the superficial rationalization of something deeper and darker: a fundamentally individualistic view point, in which the individual and his choices are mythologized and glorified, while anything collective (e.g. a nation, a policy or a private firm) is vilified or mistrusted, as standing in the way of personal realization... Atlas Shrugged and all that neoliberal BS.
No, there aren’t.
What was being discussed in the conversation you quoted me from was an example given — one — of a death. Side effects would be a different discussion.
The point about rareness is purely statistical. Given that 6 billion doses have been given, one case is extremely rare— but 5,000 cases would be very rare as well.
Yeah, but one can always claim to have missed it.
The thing about social media personas is that you've nothing real tying them down, so people can create of them their own little arch-villains to heroically tear down, they don't have to deal with anything as troublesome as the racist grandmother who nonetheless helps the homeless, or the anti-trans feminist struggling for women's education rights in Iran.
The whole of humanity can simply be grouped into pro and con on any issue and all treated with the same clichés that have already been field-tested for back-patting popularity. No risk, all to gain.
However interesting your psycho-analysis may be, have you ever considered that there are people who genuinely believe that goverments (and now large industries too) are increasingly invading the private lives of people, and that this is a problem?
I advise you to read a few documents on human rights, rights to bodily autonomy, or what countries' constitutions have to say about privacy, and the relation between the state and citizens' private lives. Maybe you'll start to realize that we are taking a step back in time, forgetting the lessons of the Enlightenment where humanity (almost) collectively realized that individuals are not owned, and should never be owned by states.
Maybe apply some of that psycho-analysis to those who follow authority unquestioningly, and get so angry when they see individuals who refuse to do the same.
Well, maybe I ought to have said "As often..." rather than "As ever...".
Quoting unenlightened
Yep. That's basically what I'm saying, but once we've completed that elimination, there's far less to be gained by continuing to sort the remaining cohort by "commitment to truth". Other factors are far more likely to be responsible for the variance now, since you've eliminated the outliers on the 'commitment to truth' axis.
143 strokes out of 10 million shots for the Pfizer vaccine, last I checked. Which is much better than the strokes caused by COVID infection — and still extremely rare any way you slice it.
So what’s your point here exactly? That negative side effects exist? That cases of strokes and blood clots exist? Is that really all you want acknowledged? Fine— consider that done. I don’t see many arguing against that, however.
There’s also similar risk involved in taking Tylenol.
As someone who’s taking the vaccine already, what exactly are you driving at here?
Well...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022537177800121
It's certainly a popular approach.
Quoting Tzeentch
It was more meant as a logical deconstruction than a psychoanalysis. I am trying to eek out the unsaid assumptions. Yes of course there are such people, and I happen to be one of them.
Individual are not owned by states. Rather, states are owned by individuals. We collectively form the state - the Leviathan. So to say that you mistrust the state is to say that you mistrust others with whom you happen to live. And I am fine with that -- I tend to distrust collective wisdom too -- up to a point. What I am not fine with is antisocial behavior, i.e. behavior that will risk the lives of many for no good reason. If you don't care that your neighbors might die because of you, if you are going to systematically ignore the needs of others with whom you share a society, then you are not fit to live in that society.
“I tend to distrust collective wisdom too — [except when I immerse myself in it so completely that I can no longer see beyond it].”
That just doesn't make any sense. Unless you have access to the raw data then the extent to which such actions affect others is exactly the matter about which the government's information is not trusted.
It's not like people are agreeing that these measures are necessary to avoid the net cost of millions of lives but then saying "fuck it, I don't care". They don't believe these measures are necessary to avoid the net cost of millions of lives.
They don't believe it because their governments have told them it and their governments routinely lie.
They don't believe it because it's a solution that enriches corporations and corporations routinely lie in favour of their further enrichment.
You've never heard of the boy who cried 'wolf'?
Nevertheless, people seem to also forget the technique has been around for 30 years. It started with treatment against cancer. So 30 years of testing available for mRNA drugs already exists.
So the mRNA itself is harmless - it only tells a cell to do something. The cell might create something that's unhealthy to us - in this case it creates a protein that only looks like a virus to our immune system. Our understanding of viruses is sufficient to know that no viral reproduction can occur without viral polymerase which needs another gene. If that gene isn't part of the mRNA what you're left with is harmless capsid.
https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/04/02/whats-a-virus-anyway-part-1-the-bare-bones-basics/
Of course, I trust these sources but you don't have to. However, without alternative facts or explanations why the above descriptions are wrong I have no reason to believe otherwise. Your distrust of the source wouldn't be an argument though; I don't trust Fox News but that doesn't mean everything they say is false.
You said it was safe based on a claim some doctors had made. But on that basis I’m not willing to dismiss or downplay the accounts of injuries and deaths so easily.
It seems obvious to say that it doesn’t matter whether or not it decomposes quickly if the damage is done before it does so. According to my understanding this damage is done when a cell takes up the vaccine and begins producing the spike protein of the virus; the immune system, perceiving those cells now as threats, attacks them. This is why side-effects have been reported as being more severe in the young whose immune systems are stronger.
And you know that how, pray tell?
[Quote]They don't believe it because their governments have told them it and their governments routinely lie.[/quote]
What does their doctor say?
It makes perfect sense. The fact that you struggle with truisms doesn’t mean they don’t make sense.
Quoting Isaac
Yes, we all know this has been politicized. We also know that the anti-vax movement and social media misinformation contributes to all this.
But denying reality doesn’t give you special rights to harm others, nor does it exempt you from the reality of increased risk (which is why the unvaccinated are overwhelmingly the ones getting hospitalized and dying— despite what they “believed,” oddly).
Suppose I “don’t believe” in smoking bans and drunk driving laws. Do law enforcement and courts take that “reason” seriously?
Suppose I believe I have the right to infect others with my infection. Is that a good enough reason to do so?
What people believe and why they believe it is an interesting question. But when lives are on the line, there’s incomplete information, and time is of the essence— there’s simply no room for delay. Besides, the questions will always outnumber the answers, and there’s no reason to believe that any amount of evidence will change minds.
Thus, vaccine mandates are a necessity. For those who don’t want to participate, they should have the decency to quit their jobs and remove themselves from crowded places.
This is a legitimate use of state power, backed by medical expertise.
People disagree— fine. People disagree about the election, claiming it was “rigged” — those people lose over and over again in court, and for good reason: they’re wrong. The evidence, and reality, are simply not on their side.
I was just being facetious.
Quoting Benkei
Of possible interest...
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/
Quoting https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/
The technology is so old because no one could get it to work without triggering nasty immune responses. The exact type of response some experts are concerned about now, particularly with multiple booster doses.
I explained why, I didn't say you should believe it because a doctor said it. But without explaining the causal mechanism between vaccination and injuries and death I really have nothing to go on, do I?
And side-effects certainly happen. Nobody has ever claimed this wasn't the case so that's not really a counter argument. What has been argued is that the risks of the vaccine outweigh the risk of contracting the virus. And even if vaccinations have caused deaths or severe injuries then that still doesn't tell us how those risks compare to the risks of contracting the virus.
Good to know, since I already had moral misgivings about getting booster shots when poorer countries can't vaccinate at all.
Let’s take the example of a 25 year old male with a healthy BMI and no health conditions. Would you be willing to give your own estimate of the risk such a person has of catching and dying from Covid within a 90 day period?
Try me.
Verdict reached. You’ve been rebutted already and have expressed incredulity at the idea that your opposition simply disagree with you about the degree of risk involved in all this.
Not a complete answer. We use this at work.
http://covid19-phenomics.org/PrototypeOurRiskCoV.html
This one is the only one I know of to include BMI
https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation
You might be interested.
Thanks. The second one is what I’d already used to get the risk estimate for my example. My guess is that many people will be inclined to massively overstate the risk compared to the estimate that calculator provides.
I've always considered Texas as a kind of convict colony. But if we are going to use bombs, I prefer neutron.
I like that, lol. Thanks for the clarification
As long as they end up in another universe as a result, I'm ok with it.
We also have a large number of people being fed misinformation by social media and the anti-vaxxer crowd who refuse to be vaccinated, willing to take their stand on this issue -- during a pandemic. Not huge income inequality, not the tax cuts for rich people, not the destruction of the environment, not the fact that corporations can buy our politicians, not the gutting of voting rights and abortion rights. No, they're willing to quit jobs and debate endlessly about getting a jab in their arm.
Just worth reflecting on this stupefying situation.
It certainly has been that.
Not being coerced into taking a corporate product by those exact same politicians is taking a stand against the fact that corporations can buy our politicians.
https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation
According to this calculator the risk that the 25 year old catches and dies from Covid within a 90 day period is 1 in 500,000.
If we make him an eternal 25 year old we can expect him to catch and die from Covid an average of once every 125,000 years.
Do you think he requires a vaccine?
And then there's the important other considerations like avoiding having to go to the hospital and take up healthcare resources others need (which is significantly more likely as dying from it) and diminishing spread thereby avoiding people who are weaker getting the vaccine.
He's free to think 1 in 500,000 is a low enough risk but it's an unnecessary risk and it's also inconsiderate with respect to the other considerations.
Not true. One example to show it: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796.amp
Quoting Benkei
From the same calculator and inputs the 25 year old’s chance of a Covid associated hospital admission within a 90 day period is 1 in 12,346.
If we make him an eternal 25 year old we can expect him to be hospitalised by Covid an average of once every 3,086 years.
Do you think he requires a vaccine?
But I'll grant you that one. The risk is still way lower, considering the number of vaccines given.
So my previous comment stands. A higher risk and inconsiderate.
The two data sets can't be compared since they use different methods of classifying cause of death.
COVID deaths are recorded by mention on the death certificate (which is almost universal practice after a positive test) whereas ADR deaths are recorded by known cause, and expected deaths by normal 7 day death rate are deducted.
The MHRA recorded 1,143 deaths following vaccination (about 35 million doses at the time) so if these were recorded in a similar manner to COVID deaths the comparative figure would be much higher. Could even be as high as 1 in 350,000 if they all were added to the death certificate under assumption as COVID is.
Of course, the correct thing to do is to change how we record COVID deaths, not up how we record ADRs. Point is, you can't compare them meaningfully.
Governments are invading the lives of citizens, censoring information, constantly in contradiction and spreading information that is factually false, acting in contempt of human rights and their own constitutions.
Anyone who isn't on their hind legs yet, is an ignorant. Sorry, there is no other way around it.
He dies once every 125,000 years.
He is hospitalised once every 3,086 years.
He is posed a still unquantified risk by the vaccine. By declining it he is “inconsiderate”.
If the government declares something to be mandatory tout court it doesn't follow that they will be legally responsible to pay compensation in the unlikely event that something goes wrong. Sometimes seat belts cause terrible injuries for example. Seat belts are mandatory here is Australia, and that is only to protect oneself. If vaccines were made mandatory that would be to protect oneself and others.
If vaccination is provisionally mandatory (if you what a certain job, or you want to do certain things) then the individual still has a choice; but they will have to be prepared to wear the consequences. Also the advice has never been that the vaccines are 100% percent safe and effective, so it is acknowledged that there is always a risk involved in being vaccinated from covid. This is so with all other vaccines and common medications: the rare case of adverse reaction, even death, is always possible.
What's curious though that you insist on making the riskier choice. If you have a risk of something happening for sure and you can cut that risk in half or even by ten, the decision is obvious. How about cutting a 25% risk by a factor 10? 10%? My point is that it's arbitrary to choose the higher risk just because you think the risks are low enough.
If you look at car accidents, there's only a 1 in 35,000 years risk of being in a fatal accident (in the UK). How about not wearing a seat belt then? You'll only die once every 17,500 years!
As with most vaccination it's not only about the person getting the vaccine which is how you continue to portray it. And it's, as I already said not just the hospitalisation, but also transmission (which thankfully the vaccine also had an effect on).
Finally, in addition to my previous points, it's also inconsiderate because while you might feel it's acceptable to accept the higher risk many of those around you don't. And these small risks, if a lot of people make the irrational choice, add up to significant risks for wider society.
Some of those people have compromised immune systems or can't get a vaccine for personal reasons and the likelihood of getting infected and transmitting it to another or being in a causal chain that results in an infection of someone who dies from it are high. After about a year, it's estimated that over 25% of Dutch people have had an infection. And that's "low" thanks to lock downs and other measures.
Thanks to vaccinations we can almost do everything we want again without restrictions but only because the uptake for the vaccine is sufficient. Without that, we'd still be in lock down. So, if enough people are anti vaxxers... then you cannot normalise social rules because too many people will get sick.
Yes, we will all be soviet nazis when the dust settles. The rest wil be in concentration camps. I wish I could bet that in vegas
This is the typical response (not in a bad way, just useful to summarise). The common themes are
1. It doesn't matter how little the risk is reduced, it makes sense to reduce any risk that one can.
2. It's not about you it's about
2a - the hospital bed you might take up putting pressure on the health service, and
2b - the vulnerable others you might infect if you remain unvaccinated, and
2c - the return to normal that's being postponed by lack of vaccine uptake.
The counter arguments have already been presented, but
1. Low risk reduction means that only small preferences are sufficient to outweigh it, like coffee, bacon, sugar, skipping gym... Just not trusting (or even not liking) the corporations who produce these medicines is clearly in the same category of minor preference as coffee, bacon and gym avoidance. If you do trust the vaccine, then I admit a jab in the arm might be too small a preference, but it depends how much you hate jabs in the arms, it's down to personal preferences at this point. Taking a small increased risk for personal preference is quite normal behaviour.
2a. The actual risk is relevant again here though, otherwise the same pressure would apply to a huge swathe of acceptable activities which increase your risk of needing a hospital bed. A moral imperative has to be at least vaguely consistent to have any normative force. Insisting that a very low risk of hospitalisation is reduced even further would apply to dozens of other activities normally considered acceptable. As with personal risk, a small increase in risk to others is still considered part of a normal social compromise made to allow a diversity of personal preferences, so the actual relative figures matter.
2b. The data on how vaccines might reduce transmission is limited and if they do reduce transmission it will vary by cohort. The transmission argument is often wheeled out alongside the symptom reduction argument as if to share in its authority - the two have very different degrees of confidence in their risk reduction. In any case, the person living in rural Wales with a small social group and good hygiene habits is extremely unlikely to have their rate of transmission reduced by any significant amount (and again, as above, there's no normative force behind the argument that all reduction in risk must be taken no matter how small, it's simply not a normal requirement).
Often ignored, but relevant to all these arguments is the fact that immunity drops over time after vaccination. The effects touted for the first 28 days can't be used to assume long-term risk reduction as we know for a fact they they drop off by four months and we don't have any robust data at all on how effective they are after that. Again, if you don't mind the vaccine, and trust the suppliers, then this is all irrelevant because you might as well reduce the risk if you can, but if you don't like the vaccine or don't trust the suppliers, then the risk reduction has to be considerably higher to outweigh the costs and we just don't have the data on that for the long term.
2c. Again, scientific opinion is now largely that vaccination will not bring about an end to the pandemic. The UK's chief adviser recently called the idea "a myth". The sole focus is on preventing the health services from being overwhelmed whilst the virus slowly becomes endemic.
To meet this effect, it's only necessary that people at real risk of hospitalisation (or at real risk of spreading the virus to such people) take the vaccine. That's a very large majority of the population, particularly in America, but it's not everyone. Public health mandates have never tried to account for a minority to whom they don't apply as it waters down the message to very little gain (see 'potatoes are not a vegetable', and 'every unit of alcohol increases your chances of heart disease' as examples - both false, both aimed at a majority who would have taken the truth out of context and missed the important message), so using to public health messages as evidence to contradict this is not appropriate. A public health message is a tool, not a statement of fact.
The public health message on this should be exactly as it is - take the vaccine, mask, distance, clean. But this is not a public health forum and we can afford a little more subtlety here, surely.
We've seen this before. History is full of it, sadly. It always starts with good intentions (or at least, allusions to such) and the idea that human rights are just a set of rules, and rules are there to be broken.
Though I think seldom humanity was betrayed for such a small sum.
And the scale has never been greater, it is global. It's really incredible.
Did you not get the memo? It's only those opposed to universal vaccination whose motives have any occult psychology. Those promoting it are all completely rational human computers who only ever output the unadulterated facts and strategies dispassionately calculated using them. Is that not obvious from the calm, patient use of non-emotive arguments supported by direct citation of peer reviewed studies?
Oh no, wait...
Quoting Olivier5
It is normal behaviour and I don't deny this - it is, however, irrational. One important difference as well is that many of the choices you give as an example do not also entail increased risks to others.
Every policy in the Netherlands was about flattening the curve including vaccination. And the problem is that small personal risks and small risks to others add up. If 25 year olds only die once in 125,000 years, then 125,000 of them not getting a vaccine means , with an R0 of .9 (currently in NL) over 1 million other people will be infected by them. That results in about 100,000 hospital admissions, 30,000 ICU admissions and around 200 deaths. With only 1500 ICU beds available you can see the problem.
What makes sense at the personal level doesn't necessarily translate in sensible approaches from a systemic point of view.
The proof is more or less in the pudding that numbers escalate far less now than a year ago despite almost all rules having been relaxed in those countries where vaccination uptake has been significant. In the US there are clear differences at state levels as well.
Granted.
I don't think I argued for ending the pandemic but ending lock downs.
Agree.
Yes.
Quoting Benkei
The histrionics surrounding and inspiring these measures have had their own consequences for peoples’ freedom, happiness, livelihoods and by extension their health. On this basis I don’t accept the choice not to participate in the parade is irrational.
Quoting Benkei
I also don’t accept that lockdowns are necessary; I believe we could have had normalised social rules (that included hand washing and taking care around the vulnerable) from the beginning without the consequences suspect characters like Neil Ferguson convinced so many of.
Can you prove the efficacy of lockdowns? If lockdowns aren’t necessary what happens to your view regarding the vaccine?
It's irrational not to reduce risk, just as it's irrational to eat crap when you know it's bad for you. Perfectly human but irrational nonetheless.
Quoting AJJ
You don't accept it because you believe what?
We had "1.5 meters, hand washing and taking care around the vulnerable, no more parties and congregations" in the Netherlands before we went into lock down because infections just kept rising exponentially and overwhelming the healthcare system. So much for lock downs not being necessary. Here's some research into the efficacy of lock downs.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254403
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249732
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82873-2
But they do by the same metric used with Covid. We've introduced a new 'using up a hospital bed' measure. All the things I mentioned have a small increased risk of using up a hospital bed and thus affecting others. But we could have simply listed driving, skiing, building work, any polluting activity, anything which releases CO2...all of which directly harm others, but if the risk is very small, they're usually tolerated. Which leads to the question of what you mean by "it is, however, irrational". Do you mean that it's irrational to allow preferences to override potential for risk reduction even when the risk is small? I'm not sure how you'd arrive at such a proposition...
Quoting Benkei
I get what you're saying here. We need to include the full chain of those affected, and I agree, but the numbers you're using are averages, and we've been talking about the diversity of situations and the contextual nature of responses.
Here, for example, the study found that just 9% of the initial cases were responsible for over 80% of the second generation cases.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30287-5/fulltext
and here,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32685698/
these situations are modelled by Akira Endo at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
My isolated hygienic Welsh hermit, for example, is unlikely to have an R0 value of anywhere near 0.9, not even remotely close. The R0 just becomes another figure like the personal risk, which is different depending on the circumstances and so multiplies the risk of harm by different, often insignificant, amounts. The actual data matters.
So yes, we would have to take into account the chain of consequences (again, only to a reasonable degree), but the R0 gives us an average. We already established that on average one should probably take the vaccine, distance, mask, and wash. What we're discussing here (or at least the point I'm trying to make) is that something which is good policy on average does not necessarily make it good policy for any given individual. A reasonably well-informed decision to act other than such a policy should be a perfectly normal part of any community's healthy diversity of opinions.
The coronavirus has spread across the world, over distances spanning thousands of kilometers but according to experts a 2 meter/0.002 kilometers distance will prevent transmission between people. :chin:
I simply took it as an exhortation to be wary of glass-house stone throwing.
Quoting Olivier5
I didn't realise you actually wanted answers!
Because I've spoken to many of them, depends on who their doctor is, respectively.
At a glance the studies you’ve shared are models/guesswork.
Here are some actual observations:
An interview with Sunetra Gupta where she speaks about the virus behaving in the same fashion regardless of differing lockdown conditions: https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/
Here’s an article referring among other things to the UK death rate falling too soon for lockdown to be the cause: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-the-nhs-was-not-overrun-by-covid-during-lockdown/amp
Here’s the initial Imperial College/Neil Ferguson report that scared the West into locking down in the first place (I think the final paragraph is worth drawing your attention to): https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf
And here’s an article listing Neil Ferguson’s past (grossly inaccurate) predictions: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/six-questions-that-neil-ferguson-should-be-asked
It’s also worth pointing out that infection numbers are a product how much testing you do. An alarming figure can be created out of thousands of people who test positive but who aren’t actually ill.
You're welcome not to answer my questions but I will keep asking them, if you don't mind too much.
So you've spoken to many of them antivaxxers and, apparently you trusted them. It didn't come to your mind that they could be dishonest. Which is strange given your general mistrust for folks and society. I can see that some people are worthy of your trust, still.
So what does your doctor say then?
There's the point about "what an average is". In the town where I live, there's a railroad trestle over a road that has a 9' clearance, and now and then someone drives a truck into it. On average, vehicles pass under it without issue, but not all vehicles. Simple.
But then there's the desertion paradox, that no soldier's individual contribution to the outcome of a battle is so great that he should risk injury or death, therefore every individual soldier has rational grounds for deserting, even if he wants the battle to be won. But of course if every soldier behaves that way then the battle will certainly be lost.
Around here, that ends up being a difference in the scope of "not", and it's hard to keep straight the difference between "not everyone should get vaccinated" and "everyone should not get vaccinated".
For instance, you have presented your distrust of pharmaceutical companies as a sort of personal quirk, which others ought to take as just your idiosyncratic reason not to get vaccinated. But if you are right about pharmaceutical companies then no one should trust them, and it ought to count for everyone as a reason not to get vaccinated. You present it as "the average is fine without me" but it's also naturally read as leading to the desertion paradox.
Hospital admittance was and is real.
It certainly is. Do lockdowns help in this regard? You can’t say. How many of those admissions are people with other health conditions who go on to test positive for Covid, or whose Covid diagnosis is incidental? Is there an answer to that?
Of course. I suspect I'm much more interested in your questions than you are in my answers.
Quoting Olivier5
More of your jejune all-or-nothing analysis. Why must I either trust all of them or none of them? Is there not scope for me to trust some of them?
Quoting Olivier5
I haven't a clue. I don't even know who my doctor is any more (my previous doctor having retired some five or six years ago and my not having visited since).
Yes. This is the line of argument I have most sympathy with (though not quite enough to actually agree). If something ought to be done on average, but there's some opposition, then I can see an argument that we all ought to do that thing (even if we're not part of that average), just to show solidarity, encouragement, etc...
And I think I'd be swayed by it were there not a social component to my distrust of the pharmaceutical companies. I'm like it with software too. Passionately open-source, I hate it when organisations I work for use systems which are owned by large corporations. I was an absolute pain in the arse when everyone wanted to use Zoom (when Jitsi is better). I once was asked to file my report on a form which used Microsoft Excel macros. The department (government department, no less!) said that the macros were essential to their system. I asked them for a copy of the tender they were legally required to put out in which Microsoft bid to supply their spreadsheet software and provided the best price for the service...they provided me with a macro free version for my Libre Office.
The point is, there's a lot more to consider than just 'doing our bit' in this one matter, the rest of the world hasn't stood still while we sort out Covid and all the issues with corporate lobbying and the monumental failure of our healthcare systems, taken over by these, frankly, criminal enterprises (lest we forget, they illegally marketed suicide-inducing anti-depressant to children!). I'd need an absolutely watertight model showing no other option would work before I felt that putting my enthusiastic support behind this solution wasn't going to do more harm than good in the long run. A muted, resentful vaccination for those for whom it's absolutely necessary, no fanfare and no reward is, I think, an appropriate response to the blatant exploitation of this crisis by these profiteering hoodlums.
Oh I'm sure none of them ever lied, nor did you, ever....
My money is on a very different idea than yours: a good number of COVID contratians are of the opinion that we're making too big a big fuss for a few thousands deaths, that the world is fundamentally Darwinian and tough luck if the weak die. I know that because they say so online, including here.
They have a point of sort... The world is Darwinian and everybody dies in the end. But if we can avoid crowding hospitals in the meantime, why not?
That's not a different idea than mine. I'm absolutely certain some of then think that way too. Are you really having so much trouble with the notion of heterogeneity?
Quoting Isaac
Yep. And you stated
Quoting Olivier5
So I guess we both know how to use absolutes in a rhetorical fashion. Well done us, eh.
I don't think it's a particularly naïve faith to assume that there aren't huge swathes of people so psychopathic that they're knowingly going to let millions die while they sit back and watch just because they don't like needles, to assume they at least have a narrative in which they're the heroes not the villains.
I mean, it's possible, but I can't for the life of me think why you'd start out from that assumption as a default position whilst at the same time assuming our doctors, governments and corporations have nothing but our best interests at heart. How did the world become thus divided, the psychopaths all in rural America and the saints all in biosciences?
Oh they do: they are the Darwinian heroes who survive because they are fit for survival. Or not... Many of them actually die.
Quoting Isaac
But the Covid contrarians keep lying all the time. And you said you mistrust all governments because they lie all the time. So why turn a blind eye to all the lies of your side, all the BS by Trump and co, all the clown show on the right? Why trust such a bunch of obvious liars? Why not stay on the fence?
You are casting your lot with a lot of very crazy people.
But what is funny about your type, about those folks who lose contact with reality, progressively as it often happens, who start to doubt the official narrative and question all the seemingly settled points, what's funny with them is how naïvely they take the alternative narratives coming from their similes in good spirit, as potentially true and valid, without even the slightest doubt.
Because it is not the government saying it, therefore it must be true... :mask:
There's something of what you say here in the way social norms work -- the usual, driving on the right (or the left) side of the road because everyone else does. But there your self-interest presents no conflict.
Desertion is a cousin of the boar hunt, or the tragedy of the commons, or even the ultimatum game or prisoner's dilemma, where the dominant strategy for an individual leads to a less than optimal outcome for that individual, in some cases, and for the entire group of individuals "playing".
If you want the battle to be won, without your help (and the risk that helping entails), you have to hope that almost none of the other soldiers behave as rationally as you. (And you won't post your argument on the soldiers private chat.)
Either that, or you deem your reasons persuasive only to you, not to everyone. (This is the line I thought you were going to take.)
Your choices seem to be (1) not talking about your decision so as not to persuade anyone else, or (2) not talking about your decision because your reasons aren't persuasive.
You could, even more cynically, talk about your views just for fun, assuming everyone else is too stupid to understand that they too should desert.
What you really can't do, I think, is say, here are the reasons I found persuasive but I don't think you should; this is just "my truth", as the saying goes, and you have to find your own. That's (a) not playing the justification game properly, and, more importantly, (b) you actually want almost everyone to reach the opposite conclusion you did, so this is not some "to each his own" situation anyway.
Olivier “I tend to distrust collective wisdom too” 5.
The desertion argument is not just some academic theory. I have had a few customers argue, to my face, that since everyone else is wearing a mask, they don't have to. (And of course the history of conflict will yield examples.)
(infectees that aren't harmed, or are insignificantly or very slowly harmed, and the pathogen unexpectedly remains and does its propagation thing, which typically harms the host, unless taken out by the immune system)
active carrier
Yes, that's precisely the hypocrisy of that position. For my part the double standard and facile rationalizations make it not even worth responding to any more. A certain kind of mentality aint never gonna change.
The same reasoning underlies the decision of many people not to vote. (What difference could my one vote make?) Usually a plurality of eligible voters in the US don't vote, but lately we've seen substantial increases in voting. Maybe more Americans now believe their vote does matter.
You’re only characterising it that way. For me what it comes down to is this: your house is not built on rock; accept that you might be wrong and leave people alone.
Quoting AJJ
That's what I said; I'm going to leave them alone. But it's not a matter of me possibly being wrong. There's a larger than zero chance that the advice of the experts that is determining the strategy of vaccination being adopted by virtually every country in the world is wrong, but that is not the point. If you are at war, there is a chance that the General's strategy is wrong; from that it does not follow that soldiers should start arguing against the strategy, refusing to follow orders or deserting, because the battle will be lost if enough soldiers were to follow this course.
And it doesn't matter if you don't believe this situation is an emergency or amounts to war. Because the majority do think that, rightly or wrongly, and if the current strategy of vaccination were to fail it would have disastrous consequences for everyone, including you.
You don’t think a side has ever fought a battle that for the world would be better lost?
Quoting Janus
In my view those disastrous consequences will be effected by mistaken people incapable of admitting fault; people who will never truly accept that they might be wrong.
I’m no MAGA-capped cretin, you got that right.
I agree this is a serious concern. In the early days, public health officials had to make decisions before they knew how it was transmitted (remember the "droplets not aerosols" period?) and before they knew what the case fatality rate was. There have been changes in the guidance from various officials since the beginning, but that's tricky from a public confidence standpoint, plus there are always people that will claim this shows you don't actually know what you're doing. In 20/20 retrospect, maybe the lockdowns were more a result of institutional momentum than anything else. I think the jury is still out, but YMMV.
Still, the US has hit 700,00 dead and the worldwide total is approaching 5 million. The thing about a novel virus is that it is inherently more infectious, as no one is immune to it yet, and you do not, by definition, know enough to know how dangerous it is and what measures are appropriate. If we were over-cautious, that would be understandable; that we were is not really obvious from the death toll.
I don’t know if this reference was arbitrary or meaningful. If the latter, I’m not American and I nevertheless still doubt the official narrative.
This isn’t particularly alarming when you consider that worldwide about 60,000,000 people die each year. This virus principally affects those who are elderly and in poor health, i.e. those who would constitute a significant portion of that number anyway.
If this battle is lost the whole world loses.
Quoting AJJ
If there were enough recalcitrants to cause the vaccination program to fail, yes, and of course I wouldn't expect them to admit they had been wrong. I can't see any evidence to suppose the vaccination program itself will result in disastrous consequences, but of course that, however unlikely, is not impossible. There are always risks involved in any course of action.
A remarkable display of compassion; well done!
The current case fatality raise is just over 2%, so based on that if we just let 'er rip and everyone were to contract the virus, we could expect a death toll from covid alone of 160,000,000. Add to that deaths from the medical facilities being overrun and economic collapse and it looks like a pretty grim scenario.
Have you accepted yet that you might be wrong?
Quoting Janus
My compassion is for those who have lost their livelihoods, their lives or the lives of their children to authoritarian measures implemented and advocated for by people too stupid to have done otherwise.
Of course it's logically possible that the expert consensus is wrong. Can you give any good reason for thinking that it is likely to be wrong?
Quoting AJJ
What do you think would happen if we let it rip and didn't bother with vaccination or lockdowns ? when people started dying like flies, you don't think panic would ensue and people would lock themselves down?
Have you accepted yet that you might be wrong, and that you are in a much less qualified position to judge the likely outcomes than the experts?
The last three pages of this thread I think contain adequate reasons for doubting the official narrative.
Quoting Janus
Temporary hospital crises no worse than what we’ve had.
Quoting Janus
My opinions are formed partly from listening to some experts over others. John Ioannidis and Sunetra Gupta being two good examples.
You seriously beleive that this hasn't been improving as more and more people have been vaccinated?
Quoting AJJ
You believe two experts against how many others? On what basis? Because you like what they say more?
If your opinions are only "partly formed" by listening to those, then what else contributes to forming them?
I can accept that it protects those vulnerable to virus for a while. I don’t accept that it’s of overall benefit for others to roll the dice on the potential side-effects.
Quoting Janus
Because I can think, what they say makes sense, and no one has yet been able to argue adequately against what they say.
Quoting Janus
Articles that refer to pertinent facts or observations such as this one: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-the-nhs-was-not-overrun-by-covid-during-lockdown/amp
You might want to look at this critique of Ionaddis...or not.
Good luck.
An 8% increase in the world's mortality rate strikes me as significant.
Quoting AJJ
Why should you choose?
I don’t share your confidence in yours.
Quoting Janus
My opinions don’t contradict the experts, only some of them.
Quoting Janus
I suspect this is because your position is too difficult to argue when you’re unfamiliar with mine.
Also, this is tendentious. Infection fatality rate much lower than case fatality rate. Infections and deaths inevitable and spread out.
Source? From what I’ve seen the UK’s mortality rate has been within the normal range.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Because it appears by not choosing you harm everyone for no benefit.
You missed out the link I assume you were supposed to include.
Dividing 5 by 60.
Quoting AJJ
I meant, why do you have to choose whether to sympathize with those who lost loved ones to the virus and those who lost something -- loved ones, livelihood, way of life -- to the response?
That isn’t an 8% increase in mortality. It’s just 8% of 60,000,000.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
This isn’t what I said. I’ve recognised at this point that you’re a sneak.
Good to know. I was confused and asked as clearly as I could.
Quoting AJJ
As you wish. I believe you have accused me of bad faith in every exchange we've had, but for the life of me I don't know why.
Well it’s impossible to know, but I’d expect the same comments from someone wearing a smirk as they typed.
We can say: they do.
I can't see the risk you're seeing. If we boil my claim down to "people who have good* reason to believe they don't really* need the vaccine ought not to take it", then it seems that everyone could follow that principle. Most would take the vaccine because most people are either overweight, old, unhealthy, useless at hygiene, or live/work in crowded places. In terms of outcome, if everyone followed that maxim (and the other necessary healthcare measures), we'd probably be fine.
* 'Good' here meaning evidence-based and 'really' meaning to reduce risk below an acceptable threshold.
The only issue was whether they'd feel enthusiastic enough about doing so if they knew others weren't.
But here's what I just don't understand about the argument you're making (and @Janus). If all the psychotics stopped taking their medicines there'd be a crisis in the mental health institutions. Should we all take anti-psychotics in solidarity, because some must? If all travellers refused the vaccination appropriate to their destination there'd be a massive increase in tropical diseases in returnees, must we all take such measures out of solidarity? If all diabetics stopped taking insulin hospitals would be overwhelmed, must we all take insulin?
It seems a completely normal way of doing things, that those people who need a medication take a medication and those people who don't, don't. As Martin Kulldorff, Professor at Harvard Medical School, put it
So what am I missing? If some people need to take a vaccine because their life choices, or just luck of the draw, puts them in a higher risk category for hospitalisation and spread, then why must we all take it?
Yeah. An oncologist and journalist with no training at all in epidemiology criticises just about the most cited epidemiologist in the world and you side with the oncologist?
Weren't you only just lecturing us about picking sides because you prefer the message?
In any case was there anything in that article you disagree with, any criticism of the actual article as opposed to focusing on the author's credentials? Although I have said I follow what I perceive to be the advice of the majority of experts, it doesn't follow that when considering what two individuals have to say that I will automatically default to believing the one who seems to be the more qualified. Highly qualified individuals can and do lose the plot, even in relation to their chosen professions.
These seem to be poor analogies to me. Psychosis and diabetes are not infectious, so there;s that. And as to taking vaccines to protect against tropical diseases that may be caught in certain regions, what would be the point of those not traveling to such regions taking them?
Quoting AJJ
Wrong. Try actually reading what they did. They tried to make models that fit the available data, which data shows lock downs worked. Which is useful for future reference for policy decisions. And they build a counter factual scenario for Sweden using actual data from other countries. But the underlying data is real.
Also note that you have not managed to submit information that's researched and peer reviewed. So my heuristic is to not spend time on reading it. Send a paper how lock downs don't work.
Yes, seems self evidently true. So the question is whether the claims are true. We have two choices - we analyse the claims ourselves, or we trust someone else to have done so for us. I assume you haven't analysed them yourself, so that leaves trust - hence the question about expertise and trustworthiness. The article is written in an extremely confrontational style and includes dozens of attempts to merely cast shade and insinuate among it's scattering of actual cited arguments. That alone mkaes me far less likely to trust it as a source, but each to their own.
If you're interested, heres a response in the BMJ (a considerably more reputable journal that 'sciencebasedmedicine.org, but as I say, each to their own).
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/22/an-open-plea-for-dignity-and-respect-in-science/
Quoting Janus
Exactly.
I read that article and I have no argument with it. I haven't suggested Ioannidis should be vilified or de-platformed. I don't care whether sciencebasedmedicine.org is more or less reputable than the BMJ, all I would care about, if I cared about what he says, is whether the claims made about Ioannidis' claims are true. If sciencebasedmedicine.org has made false claims about Ioannidis then he, or his supporters, should be able to expose their falsity.
I can't be bothered trying to find that out because I don't rely on him for advice anyway; but I would say that anyone who does rely on him for advice would be well advised to find out if the claims about his claims are true.
I follow the consensus, or at least what I perceive to be the consensus because I, as a non-expert, simply have nothing else to go on and I believe that if the majority of experts believe a certain thing then that is most likely, although obviously not guaranteed, out of the suite of opinions out there, to be correct.
Technically, you don't need to be an American republican to be a cretin (though it helps). All you need is to swallow their lies. You see, you all proud of yourselves because you can doubt the 'official narrative', but any idiot can do that. Call me when you can doubt your own narrative, when you can see through the many lies of your own side, when you are not possessed anymore by this obscene eagerness to believe anything as long as it is not official.
:lol: I don't need help being a cretin. I can do it all by myself.
How would anyone go about doing that without simply getting into a second level of some scientists saying one thing, some saying another and having to decide who to trust? That route doesn't seem to get us anywhere.
Quoting Janus
Why?
If he said the things it is claimed that he said, then there should be documentary evidence, no?
Quoting Isaac
Why not? If ten people say that the truck involved in the accident was at fault and two say the car was at fault, who would you believe? The opinions of ten experts is more likely, although obviously not guaranteed, to be correct than the opinions of two who disagree. It's called scientific consensus, the basis of peer review. It's not infallible, obviously, but it's the best we have.
Yes, but in question is the veracity of those things, the interpretation of them, the contextual meaning. The literal transcript is irrelevant.
Quoting Janus
Depends on the two and the ten. If the two were nearby and the ten far away, I'd err on believing the two. We're not blinded to the sources of data in scientific studies. Nor are we blinded to the methodology, so we needn't act as if we have no other factors than popularity on which to make our choice.
Quoting Janus
It really isn't. I've been peer reviewed and done peer review. It's a process of checking for methodological errors, occasionally conceptual confusions, suitability for the journal in question, and conflicts of interest. It's carried out by a handful of people, usually the same faces. It's totally unrelated to the popularity of some given study after it's been published, or the popularity of any given field or method of investigation.
The 'scientific consensus' is...
a) usually unmeasurable, what you're getting is the media narrative of it, not some sort of poll.
b) a feature of the popularity of certain starting assumptions and methodological fashions
c) heavily influenced by funding bodies, journal biases, corporate employment and sponsorship, and plain old social dynamics.
d) largely unrelated to veracity. We do not all check each other's work, there's no mass error checking going on, no forum at which conflicting ideas are thrashed out and a vote taken. It just doesn't work like that, not at these timescales.
Did they?
Quoting Benkei
Guesswork.
Quoting Benkei
And now you’re sulking.
Powerful stuff.
“Stochastic” is a term derived from a Greek word meaning... “guess”.
Those links you’re sulkily refusing to look at are enough. But here’s an article listing 35 pertinent studies: https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/
Quoting Isaac
Here's what I think just happened -- look back through this little sub-thread and see if you agree.
You are making at least two claims: one is the "on average" thing; the other is that you personally don't trust pharmaceutical companies.
I endorsed the "on average" claim, distinguishing between reasons to believe that not everyone needs to get vaccinated and reasons to believe that everyone needs not to get vaccinated.
I presented an argument that your distrust of pharmaceutical companies is a reason for no one to get vaccinated, and is inconsistent with a belief that some people should. You tried to manage this inconsistency in your first response by resenting the fact that some people should trust vaccine vendors.
In your second response, you don't mention distrust of pharmaceutical companies at all, but you present the "on average" argument as a response to the claim that everyone should get vaccinated. I never made that claim; my argument was only to show that distrust of pharmaceutical companies does not belong here, but in an argument that no one should get vaccinated, an argument you do not intend to make but keep making.
(Maybe you recall that some time ago I suggested that your arguments on this issue strike me as "associative" rather than logical, and if I were presenting my position as you present yours I would worry. It's an indicator of motivated reasoning. --- I don't normally look into the motives of those I'm arguing with, but you and I know what we're about here and I trust you'll take the question in the spirit it's intended.)
Roughly, here you said "A and B" and I agreed to A but warned you off B, and then you presented A as if it's a response to my claim that B is inconsistent with A.
If you want to argue that vaccination is only indicated for those with risk factors -- which has consistently been your position, I believe -- then you need to accept that it is so indicated and stop making claims about the pharmaceutical industry in general that can only support the view that the vaccine is indicated for no one.
I can put it one more way: I addressed your claim that you have a reason not to take the vaccine and you responded, really quite specifically, by saying that you (and many others) don't have any reason to take the vaccine. That's a non sequitur. If I did that, or, more to the point, if I did that and didn't even notice that I'd done it, but it was pointed out to me, I'd worry that my reasoning was motivated.
First link, doesn't work.
Second link isn't peer reviewed even after a year.
Third link, doesn't work.
4th link, not peer reviewed after a year.
5th link, not peer reviewed after a year.
6th link, doesn't work.
7th link, not peer reviewed after a year.
8th link, not peer reviewed after a year.
I assume it doesn't get better and I have better things to do than follow all these rabbit holes.
All the pre-prints are old so probably data at the beginning of the pandemic wasn't very good allowing for differing interpretations.
If quarantaines work then obviously lock downs do too. It's really... Logical. If quarantaine of sick people works to avoid having a disease spread then effectively putting all family units in quarantaine works too. Lock downs were imposed during the plague as well.
Of the first 10 only two lead to a blank page, but you can find them by Googling their titles.
Quoting Benkei
Of course.
Quoting Benkei
Not according to what I’ve shared. I will say this again: your house is not built on rock. Whinging won’t fix the subsidence.
Having taken a closer look, the first study (the link does actually work) was published in EClinicalMedicine. I looked them up and it’s a journal published by The Lancet.
The tenth study (which you didn’t get as far as) was published in the British Medical Journal.
You asked for studies and there they are. Are they all perfect and true to reality? I don’t know. Are yours?
Would it surprise you if I didn't?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Here's where it goes wrong, and hopefully in a simple way. I was trying to argue that distrust of pharmaceuticals is a reason for as few people as possible to get vaccinated. In other words, to counter the (otherwise reasonable) all-in-it-together argument which might have everyone taking the vaccine to show solidarity with the group who actually need to.
I don't see why distrust of the pharmaceuticals need be an all or nothing factor, it's just one of many to weigh. In common with any sort of distrust, we don't just abandon all relations. I don't fully trust my fellow pub patrons, I wouldn't tell them all my pin number. I might though, ask one to look after my drink while I pop out and trust him not to poison it. Trust is not a binomial thing.
So were faced with an awful situation. There's this crisis where millions are dying and one crucial part of the solution is a vaccine. But the only people who can make vaccines are these awful, criminal profiteers (I'm exaggerating only a bit). What do we do? If we say we can't trust the awful, criminal profiteers and tell them where they can stick their vaccine, a lot of people will die whilst we all become immune naturally. But does rejecting that option mean we have to march it in on a litter to fanfare, ticker-tape parades and cheering crowds, one for everyone...have one for the baby... No, I don't think so. I think we can, as I said, begrudgingly accept that we have little choice for those who really need it, but that's as far as we'll go and as soon as this thing's over...
I don't trust the pharmaceutical industry (with good reason, it's not a random dislike), but they're currently the only source of medicine. Sometimes we need medicine. It seems obvious (to me) that in such a situation we take the medicine (what choice do we have?) but only at utmost need, as little as possible and without fanfare.
Yea, yea,yeah. You should get vaccinated. It's a mean virus.
But you have to link up distrust with "as few people as possible" in some specific way. Is it because the vaccine might actually be poison and you want as few people as possible to be poisoned? Is it because the seller is making money per dose, and you want them to make as little money as possible?
So that's a new thing, but let's not forget the overall shape of the argument: you've already claimed that the right thing to do is vaccinate people who need (defined in the usual way) the vaccine, and not vaccinate people who don't need it. That about covers it, right? The rest is empirical details about who actually needs it.
What difference could other thoughts about pharmaceutical companies make here? There's no room for "You need the vaccine, but ..." and no need for "You don't need the vaccine, plus ..."
• Air pollution and COVID-19 (Dec 2020)
• How Covid gave the world a lesson in tackling air pollution (Apr 22, 2021)
Both. The chance of harm from the vaccine and the fact the money made out of this response is all going to these companies who then have a massive incentive (and and even bigger capability) to push even more for such solutions next time. I mean, am I really having to actually explain why we might want to avoid giving taxpayer's money, and massive public acclaim, to criminal enterprises with very strong influence over government policy?
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
It's here...
Quoting Isaac
The prevailing sentiment of our generation - shameful at best.
- Paul Krugman
Quoting Apollodorus
The primary reason why vaccination is required in the schools is to prevent the spread to other children and teachers. Epidemics of measles, mumps, diphtheria, whooping cough, etc. have almost disappeared.
Quoting Apollodorus
I don't know what "get away with it" means in this context. What do you suggest we do?
Krugman’s argument is a stupid one. The fact that governments have in the past regulated this or that activity isn’t an argument that they should keep on doing so, that they should force companies to mandate vaccines, that they should violate someone’s bodily autonomy and their right to make one’s own medical decisions, and so on. No, this is nothing like complaining about seatbelts, but it’s no surprise people keep bringing it up. False analogies and appeals to tradition are the few arguments they have left.
Absent any coherent argument they have state coercion, the last resort of the weak. Of course many people will comply when the government threatens to end their livelihood. Cruelty and coercion may be successful, sure, but achieving success through these means only serves to illustrate how their other efforts until then were utter failures.
That the enthusiasm of the vocal pro-vaccers is unfounded.
That the hatred and contempt that the vocal pro-vaccers show for everyone who doesn't share their enthusiasm is unjustified.
That the lowering of the standards of communication as is evident in the vaccination debate is unacceptable and dangerous.
Take them to court, impose sanctions, anything is better than nothing. Otherwise the regime will think that it is untouchable and this can only make matters worse IMO.
Part of the problem is insisting on looking at the matter from the perspective of large numbers, large populations, and then expecting that individual people will be convinced and soothed by this.
If you are the one who gets the stroke after the vaccine, it does not matter to you if so many millions didn't get one. It's still you who is now paralyzed.
I wonder how useful this observation is. Isn't understanding and managing the odds how life is negotiated for the most part? All of life is a risk. Simple daily activities like crossing a road or eating seafood can kill you if you have bad luck. If you're the one with the bad luck, you can be understandably dismayed but isn't this the price of being a fragile corporeal creature in an incoherent and dangerous world?
Not at all. It is doubtful that even professional statisticians think of their life choices in terms of odds.
Do you ever reflect on risk before crossing the road or eating seafood? I'm pretty sure you don't.
Was it really "bad luck"?
To believe in luck, good or bad, is to believe that things in this universe don't happen in accordance with laws, regularities, but that the world is chaotic and that such are also our minds and activities. This has pernicious ramifications for one's outlook on life and for the way one acts.
If the world is really incoherent and dangerous as you say, then there is no reason to believe that anything (whether vaccines or levers) can make any difference. Except maybe magic.
We have science, and we believe in science, precisely to avoid relying on luck.
I doubt that would be effective, but sure. I have no objection. I'll go along with that if you'll go along with mandatory vaccination.
You don't have to reflect on risk when you get vaccinated either.
I sure do and when I get in a car.
I'm obviously using luck in the conversational sense. But whatever you wish to call it. Life is risk and you may be dead by morning...
Quoting baker
I actually didn't spell out precisely how dangerous or incoherent, did I? Is this merely some grotesque exaggeration to avoid a point? I can't tell.
An example - a friend died of lung cancer at 40. She didn't smoke. My grandfather smoked 2 packets a day for 70 years and never got sick. He died in his sleep at 96. Human experience in a nutshell. This is why I use words like luck or incoherent. Feel free to suggest an improved nomenclature, but you can't avoid the point.
But from this example I do not conclude there is no merit in taking precautions in life because, all quirky anomalies aside, most people who smoke 2 packs a day die from it.
Unfortunately, I can't go along with mandatory vaccination as that sounds too much like an infringement of human rights. It would be inconsistent to condone here what I condemn in China.
Besides, if you have no objection, then you don't need to make your approval conditional on my going along with mandatory vaccination.
So, it would be easier if you unconditionally agreed. :smile:
Then why are those who want people to get vaccinated feeding us that line???
Why are high government officials, epidemiologists, public advertisements, and so on telling us that the risk of something going wrong is low, and that therefore, we should get vaccinated?
Really?? So then what -- do you get anxious? If you do, what do you tell yourself to calm down and compose yourself?
This is a philosophy forum. More precision is fully warranted.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe that life is a gamble in any way.
Of course. But this still doesn't make it a gamble. There is cause and effect. Given that some causes are currently not known, some phenomena might indeed seem random, without causes and conditions. But this seeming doesn't make them so.
The point being?
Is it an infringement of human rights to require vaccination of children against childhood diseases before they can go to school? If not, your argument falls apart.
Quoting Apollodorus
I think trying to go after China is a wasted effort intended only to make people feel like they're doing something to address the issue when it's actually meaningless. It's a human tendency to try to beat someone up when something goes wrong. But if that will make people feel better, ok. Again, it will make me feel better if people get vaccinated. Tit for tat.
Speaking of stupid arguments.
No one is forcing companies to mandate vaccines. Ask United Airlines and Tyson. Many of these companies had this policy in place before Biden's announcement. So that's your first straw man.
Second: no one is physically forcing vaccinations. You have a right to bodily autonomy, and have a right to reject the vaccine if you don't want it. You have a right to smoke and, in my view, should have the right to do drugs and commit suicide. Those all have ripple effects on the community as well, but in principle I take it as a given.
Vaccine mandates give you an ultimatum, just as smoking bans do: if you want to smoke, or be unvaccinated, that's fine -- just don't do it here. If you don't agree with that, you're "free" to work elsewhere -- which is, after all, what conservatives have been saying for years. If you don't like the amount of power that businesses have -- welcome to the club. Too bad you've worked so hard over the years destroying unions.
Quoting NOS4A2
And straw men are all Trumpists like you have have left.
Quoting NOS4A2
Last I checked, United Airlines isn't the "state."
"Other efforts" being rationality and overwhelming medical recommendations. You're right -- when that fails, after months of attempts, there's little recourse but what these companies and now, far too late, the federal government is doing. Should have been done long ago.
What about those killed by the virus ? and those saved by the vaccine?
Did you take those into account?
One could argue that withholding an effective vaccine would be a crime.
[sup]Recommended Vaccinations for birth through 6 years | Recommended Vaccines by Age (US CDC)[/sup]
As mentioned (several times in this thread alone), fatalities from the vaccine itself are very rare. Blood clotting and allergies continue to be monitored. Other vaccines (medication at large) aren't magic cures either; we've known this stuff for ages. But, of course, all fatalities are tragic.
If you're to have a get-together with the virus, then (suffering or) dying from the virus is markedly more likely than from the vaccine, ... Then there are the social/communal aspects. We learn from the evidence/science, regardless of how it's put.
I'm often mindful of my mortality. The only time I get anxious is when I am in a vehicle that is going too fast. Generally I ask the driver to slow down.
Quoting baker
That is interesting. We have different views. Alert the media...
Quoting baker
I told you. To me this (and many other examples) point to the innate lottery inherent in being alive (which you don't agree is a thing).
Quoting baker
Not necessarily. We have conversations containing some philosophical ideas using basic English words and idioms with some specialized terms. We ask for clarifications when something is unclear - as you did.
All you can offer is the standard rhethoric of risk, luck, and large populations. This is shallow.
What does that look like? Can you elaborate?
"Enthusiasm"? I'd say more frustration. Hatred and contempt, maybe -- but that, to me, isn't entirely incomprehensible either when people are refusing the vaccine, prolonging a pandemic, and infecting and killing others for no rational reason whatsoever, despite many much more sober and factual attempts at educating them by medical experts.
Quoting baker
Yes, I do insist on looking at this by the numbers and by probability -- the same way we look at anything we do when we're concerned or afraid. The same way we weigh the risk of flying in an airplane or taking Tylenol. 143 strokes out of 10 million should be persuasive to anyone who's rational that this is not a highly risky action.
Yes, for those rare cases where this happens, I feel for those people. I also feel for people who die in plane crashes, rollercoaster accidents, shark attacks, and liver disease from Tylenol.
If you're arguing this isn't persuasive, I don't know how else one can explain it. It's simply extremely unlikely that anything happens to you when you get vaccinated. That's mathematics.
Quoting Janus
Quoting baker
Because people are irrationally worried, and refusing the vaccine based on this irrational fear. At that point, these numbers can be very helpful. It can be very helpful to explain that the odds of dying or being harmed in some way by x is extremely low.
If people weren't afraid -- as they aren't usually afraid of driving or flying in an airplane or taking tylenol -- then you're right, there's no reason to discuss odds and that's not part of our daily lives. We don't walk around making calculations like this. But when we do stop and think, for whatever reason, then the proper thing to do in that moment is to understand the risk involved.
And the data show that the risks are incredibly low, and that vaccines are safe. How else are we to talk to those who continue to refuse?
Because those opposed to the vaccine are spreading misinformation suggesting that the risk is high?
It simply means that I regularly think about death and dying, maybe 2 or 3 times a month.
It may be an infringement. Either people have rights or they don't. If they do, then those rights can be infringed.
Another aspect of the problem is how contagious a transmissible disease is, the severity of the infection once contracted, etc.
It may also be argued that contracting a disease is a form of vaccination that results in protection against future infections. From what I have read the vast majority of infected people only develop very mild or no symptoms.
Going after China may not be entirely meaningless. IMO China is a form of National Socialist (i.e., Nazi) dictatorship and history shows that appeasing dictatorships of this kind tends to be counterproductive. I don't think it is just a matter of "making people feel better".
What exactly do you mean by "death" and "dying"?
Diseases, ways that people get killed, what will happen with your belongings when you're gone, ...?
As if they are human beings who are not convinced by mere gambles.
I appreciate that you are consistent with your views. If it is such an imposition, why is this becoming an issue now? Vaccination requirements for children have been around since at least the 60s.
Quoting Apollodorus
It's just a continuation of President Trump's original plan to manage the disease by changing it's name to the China virus.
If one is making the argument that there are people having strokes and dying because of the vaccine, and that this is a reason for not taking the vaccine, then how is this not simply risk-aversion? It would be perfectly rational if the rates were higher -- but the chances are so low that to point to this as reason for rejecting it simply makes no sense, as we engage in activities all the time that have higher chances of death and disfigurement, like riding in cars and showering in a bathtub.
True, we don't usually have to "debate" those other activities. But we don't normally have to debate vaccines either -- not until very recently. If someone decided suddenly to stop riding in cars, citing "accidents and death" as a reason not to, or in airplanes (like in the movie Rain Man), then besides listening, empathizing, and being compassionate to this person, how else would you try to persuade them that they're mistaken and that the activity they're unwilling to engage in is actually quite safe?
Beyond actual statistics and probability, I don't know how. I'm open to ideas.
Oh dear; you don't know what a straw-man is.
I don't know if you are up on current events or not but maybe you're not aware of Biden's vaccine mandates for companies who employ over 100 people, even though it's in the first paragraph of Krugman's piece you quoted. If they do not enforce his vaccine mandates, to fire unvaccinated employees, they face massive fines. So much for corporate power.
His mandate should begin very soon and will effect nearly 100 million workers, you know, those people you used to support.
All of Krugman's specious and fallacious arguments were to support his conclusion, which for some reason you left out.
"All of this has a clear policy implication for the Biden administration and for other leaders like governors and mayors — namely, full speed ahead. Vaccine mandates won’t cause mass resignations; they will cause a sharp rise in vaccination rates, which is key both to finally getting Covid under control and to achieving sustained economic recovery."
Oh look, the state. Does Biden represent United Airlines or Tyson? Nope. Did I mention United Airlines or Tyson? Nope. Did I say physically forcing? Nope.
And now we're comparing vaccine mandates to smoking bans. Another false analogy, I'm afraid, just like seatbelt laws. More casuistry.
Yes, it's what you're arguing against close to 100% of the time. Which is the only thing left for you.
Quoting NOS4A2
I'm not sure if you're capable of reading, but as I said (and the article says), most of these companies implemented mandates before Biden's announcement. They didn't need "coercion" to do so.
"So much for corporate power." :rofl:
It's never a matter of corporate power in your world, is it? Always the state. "The government is the problem." Jesus, it's incredible how effective propaganda can be, and what a life-long effect it can have.
Quoting NOS4A2
And continue to support. Unlike you, who only pretend to support, and have actively fought against most of your life.
Quoting NOS4A2
True, you didn't. I did. For good reason -- and for reasons you evidently still can't understand.
Quoting NOS4A2
Not at all. Actually a very good analogy. Smoking indoors, through second hand smoke, effects others. Being unvaccinated, and thus more likely to be infected with and thus transmit the virus, also effects others. If you want to be unvaccinated at home, you're free to do so. If you want to smoke at home, you're free to do so. If you feel entitled to do so at work or school, or large gatherings -- no, you don't have that right. Sorry -- that's where your rights end.
Yes, we all know you don't believe the unvaccinated transmit the virus as much as vaccinated people. There are also people who still don't believe second hand smoke is damaging, I'm sure. It matters not -- neither to the government, nor to schools, nor to businesses, nor to the courts. Ignorance isn't a license to harm others.
It isn't an issue for me at all. My original comment was in response to the suggested need to "bash one's opponent on the snout."
My point was that since the problem originated in China, and not with the anti-vaxxers, action against China should be given priority.
And, as I said, in my view China is a National Socialist dictatorship similar to Nazi Germany only about 17 times bigger and more dangerous. Far more dangerous than a few thousand anti-vaxxers ....
I just don't understand gamblers.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm not making that argument, and it's not clear why people think I am.
I wouldn't try to persuade them at all, it is not my place.
Most importantly, a person doesn't do something because it is "quite safe". The reason people do things is not because there would be a low risk involved. In fact, many things that people do are technically high risk (eating junk food, drunk driving, extreme sports etc.) or small probability of success (applying for a job, seeking love).
People do things because they consider them worthwhile, in line with their value system and such. Not because something would be a low risk or a high probability of success. Considerations of probability are, at best, a distraction.
You don't eat pork chops because you're sure that the risk of contracting a tapeworm would be low; you eat pork chops because you like to eat pork chops, and to hell with tapeworms.
The life that people will get after they get vaccinated will not be better; at best, it merely won't be worse than before. Getting vaccinated will not bring an added quality to one's life. At most and at best, it will merely retain the status quo. This is a weak selling point. Who's excited about the status quo? Barely anyone.
Further, you fail to offer a meaningful consolation for the prospect of vaccine damage and vaccine failure.
I've already mentioned that the evidence is the ground authority. And we'd be fools not to learn from it.
Maybe you and I could offer the same to those harmed/killed by the virus and those harmed/killed by the vaccine? Plus their loved ones? "Concerted efforts did its best to both contain and avoid this tragedy." (We could also mention the vaccinated that lived to see another day I suppose, unless that'd be insensitive.)
Sep 14, 2021 :sad: ‘The virus is painfully real’: vaccine hesitant people are dying – and their loved ones want the world to listen
Either way, you've been given plenty of information by now, but oddly brush it off with a hand wave. Are you looking for something else altogether...? Of course, if you're afraid or fearful or anxious or something, then that's understandable.
[sup]Apr 04, 2020 :death: 11 Days After Fuming About a Coughing Passenger, a Bus Driver Died From the Coronavirus
Nov 17, 2020 :gasp: Many COVID-19 patients insist ‘it’s not real’ until they die, nurse says
May 26, 2021 :sad: Study confirms longer-term lung damage after COVID-19
Jul 25, 2021 :death: LA man who mocked Covid-19 vaccines dies of virus
Aug 05, 2021 :death: A Texas Republican leader who repeatedly mocked masks and vaccines has died of COVID-19
Aug 08, 2021 :death: Rightwing radio host and anti-vaxxer dies of Covid
Aug 09, 2021 :sad: More than 50 long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Aug 16, 2021 :up: To protect our kids from COVID-19, we have to be grown-ups
Aug 19, 2021 :death: Unvaccinated Mom’s Dying Wish: ‘Make Sure My Children Get Vaccinated’
Aug 19, 2021 :death: Man refused to get vaccinated even after his own father died of COVID – now he’s dead from COVID too
Aug 27, 2021 :death: Georgia cop who pushed people to take horse dewormer instead of vaccine dies from COVID-19
Aug 28, 2021 :death: Texas Anti-Mask 'Freedom Defender' Caleb Wallace Dies Of COVID-19
Aug 30, 2021 :death: Conservative Radio Host Who Called Himself 'Mr. Anti-Vax' Dies from COVID After 3 Week Battle
Sep 01, 2021 :gasp: Verbal and physical attacks on health workers surge as emotions boil during latest COVID-19 wave
Sep 13, 2021 :death: Right-Wing Anti-Vax Radio Host Who Mocked AIDS Victims Dies Of COVID-19
Sep 16, 2021 :death: Anti-vaxxer mother and daughter die from Covid in Belfast hospital
Sep 16, 2021 :death: A California father described his regret after his unvaccinated pregnant wife was ventilated and their unborn baby died
Sep 21, 2021 :gasp: The Unbelievable Grimness of HermanCainAward, the Subreddit That Catalogs Anti-Vaxxer COVID Deaths
[/sup]
Potential harms of the virus - catching it and dying, catching it and getting long-term effects, catching it and passing it on to someone vulnerable, catching it and needing a hospital bed that someone else needed, prolonging economic chaos and all the associated harms by slowing down the speed at which is becomes endemic... and more.
Potential harms of taking the vaccines - short term reactions, needing a hospital bed because of short term reactions that someone else needed, long-term consequences, prolonging economic chaos and all the associated harms by slowing down the speed at which is becomes endemic, further embedding the control that corporations have over government policy by complicity, contributing to the avoidance of more important factors as causes (like community healthcare, economic equality and threat vigilance)...and more.
If it's all about risk profiles, then help me make my choice. What are my numbers? Let's ignore any selfish aims for now. My relative risk of causing harm to others by getting a vaccine compared to not getting one. Not the average relative risk (I know for a fact I'm not average), Not the public policy conclusion (that's based on the average risk and public policy is a blunt tool aimed at the masses). My relative risk.
Because if you can't produce figures for my risk then my decision is not risk based is it?
So what your original link did is not understand the paper. It quotes the paper thinking it supports the conclusions that lockdowns don't work: "“[F]ull lockdowns and wide-spread COVID-19 testing were not associated with reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.”
But the same paper writes the following as well:
At the same time full lockdowns were significantly associated with increased patient recovery rates.
Here's the same journal with a more recent paper specifically looking into the effectiveness of lock-downs.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00315-1/fulltext
It's conclusion:
And here’s another more recent study in a reputable journal concluding lockdowns don’t work: https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605
The conclusion:
And
I don’t want to play Study Wars with you. Can you throw studies at me such that your view becomes definitively correct? Because in my view that’s what you need to do in order to justify bothering people to misery and death with oppressive mandates.
Because you brought up the fact that people are having strokes. So while you may not make this argument yourself (as I would assume, given you’re vaccinated), I assumed you were bringing it up to demonstrate how others may be reasoning about this. If that’s not true, I wonder why you brought it up at all?
Quoting baker
Okay, but this is the discussion here and now. It’s really up to doctors— so let’s assume we’re in a doctors position.
But even if we aren’t, it’s a bit disingenuous to say “it’s not my business” and walk away. What exactly are you arguing about on here, then? You go on about “pro-vaxxers” and how bad they are at communicating, but you’re answer is: don’t communicate at all?
Seems like a cop out. I will continue to communicate with people about this, and hopefully inform them about it. Especially about the fact that the vaccines are as safe as driving a car— which is very important.
Quoting baker
It will.
Quoting baker
Consolation? There’s risk involved in everything we do. My consolation is: some people are unlucky. That’s no reason not to get vaccinated.
Also, what’s the consolation for the millions who have died of coronavirus? “People didn’t feel like getting vaccinated— and it wasn’t our place to try to persuade them otherwise.”
Fine— and people should get vaccinated for the same reasons. It’s simply irrational not to, at this point.
I get the feeling that Baker is arguing for the sake of argument. But I see absolutely no substance to it— just the appearance of disagreement and contradiction. Other than “pro-vaxxers are mean in communicating and overly enthusiastic,” which is sometimes true, I see nothing.
Perhaps that’s something to discuss with your doctor. Risk profiles for individuals are different in some cases, yes. But the same could be argued for flying— after all, we fly out of different airports, using different airlines, different planes within airlines, etc.
The fact remains: vaccines are safe and effective. There are extremely rare cases when they’re not— just as there are extremely rare cases where places crash.
Lastly, this isn’t solely about you. As I’ll repeatedly remind everyone.
How would my doctor know about those risks? I can see why they might keep themselves abreast of the latest medical data (though there's absolutely nothing requiring them to, it's entirely their own choice if they do or don't), but how would they know anything about the wider societal harms I'm considering?
Quoting Xtrix
OK, so give me the numbers then. If this fact is relevant to my decision then the numbers have to be relevant to me. It's pointless me taking a vaccine because it's a good risk benefit balnce for someone else. I'm aware that they're on average safer than catching the virus (in terms of harm to others), but I'm not average, so the average relative risk is useless to me.
Quoting Xtrix
Yep. That's why I said...
Quoting Isaac
...so limit your risk analysis entirely to harm to others.
It is your responsibility to assess the risks you are taking with your and other people's lives, not @Xtrix's responsibility. If the numbers must be relevant to you, then I suggest you collect them yourself.
For God's sake at least put the bare minimum effort into following a line of argument. It's only a few posts up.
Quoting Isaac
Because your doctor could give a more customized treatment plan and "risk profile" for you, given that he or she presumably has more information about you.
How would I know what your numbers are? I know nothing about you.
Quoting Isaac
"Relative risk"?
Your so far off in space I almost think this is satire. If these are the lengths that you must go through to defend not getting vaccinated, that's pretty ridiculous.
In any case: I have no idea what YOUR individual risk is of spreading the virus. Maybe you're a hermit somewhere -- who knows? But this isn't about you or any particular case. As I said before, maybe flying in an airplane isn't for you, for some reason. Maybe taking tylenol isn't for you -- who knows.
For someone who claims to care about statistics, this is pretty embarrassing.
All we know is that the vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread. The benefits of taking the vaccine far outweighs the cost of taking the vaccine in nearly all cases. If you feel, for some reason, that you have a greater chance of being an exception, and are in greater risk of dying, then demonstrate how -- but until then, you're just like everyone else.
The absurdity of your argument can be demonstrated fairly easily by switching from this particular vaccine to the measles or smallpox or polio vaccines. Much easier to see the silliness there.
Quoting Isaac
Which is like saying we cannot calculate the risk of anything, if it isn't individualized to our specific situation. Which is nonsense.
If one wants to understand the risks involved in flying in an airplane, one can look up crash statistics. If one wants to understand the risks of a vaccine, one can look up the potential negative effects of the vaccine.
In this case, the COVID vaccines are extremely safe. It far outweighs the risks of being infected with COVID, and it helps stop the spread of COVID.
Why you continue on like this is baffling.
You'd most likely lose out. ;)
How about taking a look at what actually takes place, then?
• Anatomy of our battle against COVID-19 (Jun 2, 2021)
And there are historical (textbook) case studies. Common sense is allowed, too, ya' know.
• lockdowns can save lives (+ needless suffering)
• lockdowns have socio-economic and psychological effects
• lockdowns and quarantines work in containment situations
• the more wide-spread the pathogen, the less effective the lockdown (planning needed)
• non-compliance with lockdowns + protocols (mask, distance, sanitize) have an effect
So, make lockdowns decisive, swift, not pro-longed (especially) in containment situations.
Doesn't have much to do with fear-mongering panic or evil tyrant authoritarian government feeding on your misery or conformism for conformism's sake or whatever bullshit; has to do with learning from evidence, common sense, doing the right thing, being socially responsible, not being a loose cannon, and history is a fine teacher.
“Haha! You are wrong because I am right!”
I've given the numbers. They should indeed be relevant to you -- as they should be to everyone.
What you're now trying to argue is some ridiculous notion about personalized numbers, as if we can come up with numbers specific to you. That's not how this works. Why?
We have an activity: x. The risk of dying or being harmed by x is shown to be extremely low statistically -- say, 1 in 10 million. You can further crunch the numbers if you'd like, but this is enough to tell anyone what they need to know about x.
True, if you found out that all (making it up) white males aged 35 from Mammoth Cave, Kentucky named Bob were the only ones with negative side effects, then if you fit that description you should take that into account. But that level of specificity is, of course, a fantasy in this discussion -- and one that apparently needs to be invoked to divert from a very easy and obvious choice: take the vaccine.
You're struggling with this because you're overthinking it. You're overthinking it because it's been politicized. That's all that's going on here.
Quoting Isaac
So you really don't understand statistics? It's incredible someone who claims to care about stats could utter something so ridiculous.
First of all, "average" in terms of what? By what metric? These numbers have nothing to do with "average" -- not the ones I'm talking about, regarding death from the vaccination.
The risk of taking the vaccine can be calculated. Just as your risk of crashing in an airplane can be calculated as well. How do we know the risk? Because we can calculate the number of flights and the number of crashes. Likewise, we can calculate the number of shots of the vaccine given (6 billion and counting) and the number of known cases of death. This is how we approach anything.
If you want to believe that you are exempt from the risk somehow (or are somehow more susceptible to risk), the onus is on you to show why. In some cases, like allergies, it's perfectly legitimate to take that into account. But those are very marginal cases.
To say "Well the odds of a plane crashing only pertains to the AVERAGE person, after all, and I'm not average" is just an absurdity.
Very well written, with sources. The response:
Quoting AJJ
So again, let's remind ourselves that it isn't about "debating" people who have become as dogmatic as cult members, but to demonstrate how absurd the cult is to otherwise neutral or "on the fence" persons.
The question is: is anyone else listening? Who would follow this stuff? Maybe we have more of a silent audience than we think, but I wonder...
Affect, effect.
It wasn’t that you didn’t know the difference; it was that you wouldn’t accept there was a difference without every dictionary in the world telling you that you were wrong. What does that say about the rest of your beliefs and how you generally think?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
What a buffoon.
"A tsunami of deferred debt is about to hit homeowners no longer protected by a foreclosure moratorium"
This is from the Washington Post, so Google it if you're a subscriber. In addition, if I understand correctly, banks haven't been able to foreclose on properties where the owner died, so there should be a little bonanza of foreclosures coming up. Just saying.
Did you even bother to read the list of risks I presaged the enquiry with? Only around half of them were of a medical nature. So again, why would a doctor know anything about them?
Quoting Xtrix
I'm using me as an example. The point is you don't know anyone's numbers You only know the prevalence.
Quoting Xtrix
Well, that would be disappointing for sure. So where have I gone wrong? Talk me through the correct process for risk analysis.
Quoting Xtrix
OK, go for it then.
Quoting Xtrix
Explain. In my experience this is exactly the case and always has been, so if you've been taught differently. Where exactly did you learn your statistics from?
Quoting Xtrix
Again, you'll have to walk me through the maths here because it's clearly so advanced that I haven't come across it yet. How do we go from the prevalence of plane crash deaths or the prevalence of adverse responses to vaccination to a risk profile for some individual without any variables?
Quoting Xtrix
So you keep saying, yet I'm still not seeing how this is a response to any individual deciding not to take the vaccine.
Quoting Xtrix
This seems to be a repeat of the claim above. Talk me through the maths. How do you get from this prevalence figure to a relative risk?
Quoting Xtrix
Average in terms of the mean. The mean probability from a probability distribution.
Quoting Xtrix
So you're saying the risk figures for death from vaccination are not distributed about a mean? They're what? Absolute figures? Have no distribution at all? I don't understand how they could not have a distribution.
Quoting Xtrix
Again, show me how.
Quoting Xtrix
...which gives you the prevalence. We'd normally then run tests to discover variables and analyse the effect of each to come up with a risk profile for each multivariate, but you're saying we can do without all that somehow, but you're stopping short of explaining this new maths.
Quoting Xtrix
As I say, this is news to me. It's not how I've ever approached anything. Perhaps you could give me an example of a relative risk being calculated using prevalence of outcome alone
Quoting Xtrix
So if I don't fly my risk of dying in a plane crash is still the prevalence of plane crash deaths? It's an 'absurdity' to suggest that my not flying is a factor affecting my risk of dying in a plane crash even though it doesn't affect the prevalence of plane crash deaths? Is this more of this modern new method of statistical analysis that I've missed?
First of all, what "action" is being taken against anti-vaxxers? If you mean complaining, hey, that's what this forum is for. If you mean coercing them into getting vaccinated, whether you like it or not, that is not against anyone. It is a public health action.
I still don't get why going after China matters. Getting information from them to help prevent future events, sure. You say for you that this isn't for revenge. Ok, but for many it is.
Quoting Apollodorus
China may be a bad place, but I don't know what it means to say it is national socialist. Is it dangerous? I think significantly less so than the Soviet Union was. The US is just pissed that China thinks they deserve a place in the world on a par with us. They do a lot of the same things to project themselves out into the world that we have done or are still doing.
"Anyone's numbers"? What would that look like, exactly? Give me an example.
Yes, we use statistics to calculate risk when engaging in an activity. That's assuming there are statistics on the activity. Statisticians are able to calculate probabilities on all kinds of activities based on the data.
If you play roulette, does the fact that the ball lands on black a little less than 50% of the time pertain to you when you make a bet? Or is there a more personalized number that you're looking for?
"No, I want MY odds of winning, not the prevalence of landing on black."
Saying "But I'm special" doesn't exempt you from the laws of probability, I'm sorry to say.
Quoting Isaac
Let's talk concretely: the process of risk analysis for taking the COVID vaccine -- which is what we're actually discussing. What's the "correct process" in this case?
It depends on your motives, beliefs, goals.
(1) If you don't care (or don't believe) that taking a vaccine will help slow the spread of the virus, and thus be better for the community, the country and the world, then there's no need for risk analysis.
(2) If you believe it protects just you, that's one analysis.
(3) If you believe it protects both you and others, that's another analysis.
So, I'm arguing as if we agree on (3).
Using this as a premise, our goal should be to be vaccinated unless (a) it is dangerous (i.e., it causes suffering or death) or (2) otherwise goes against our goals. There's no reason to believe either, in my view, but what you're arguing about, mainly, is (a) -- and so I gave you (or Baker, I don't remember -- but you came into the conversation at that point) the statistics.
You're now arguing that the statistics aren't good enough, because they don't pertain to you -- why? Because you're "above average." Can you see the mistake in this?
You can divide the statistics up in all kinds of ways. You can choose a parameter: the specific airline through time. How much time? A decade? The last year?
You can choose by country, and compare countries.
Yes, that's possible. What's the point? That we should do the same with vaccinations as well? Sure -- and don't you think this has been done? Are there specifics you'd like to look into? Which ones, exactly?
Because if what you're asking for is, "what's MY number"? I'm afraid that's not possible. Ever. You have general probabilities when it comes to almost any action in life. You can narrow down the range if you like, and select subgroups like ethnicity, sex, age, BMI, family history, history of vaccine reactions, allergies, etc. -- but even that won't be good enough to get you a specific number for YOU personally. You can claim this selection of data, customized for you, is still only generalities or prevalences.
So I really don't know what you're looking for, because it's a fantasy. You'll never receive it. What's happening here, I think, is that you're just afraid and are looking for absolute certainty. But maybe I'm wrong -- have you been vaccinated? But besides this, I really am at a loss as to what could be motivating you to press on like this. Just as we're talking here, the mandates are working, more people are being vaccinated, the death rates are finally coming down, few people have had to be laid off, and very few people have suffered from taking the jab.
Stop looking for reasons to continue to defend this stuff. It's a waste of your time.
The RR for lung cancer and smoking is 6.99 for men and 5.09 for women.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes.
Quoting Xtrix
No. To my knowledge none of the variables determining the fall of a roulette ball pertain to the individual betting. The game's designed that way.
Quoting Xtrix
What have the laws of probability got to do with it. I'm talking about heterogeneity in the probabilities themselves, not the laws governing them.
Quoting Xtrix
I've not once suggested the vaccine is 'dangerous'.
Quoting Xtrix
No. That's why I'm asking you to explain. Are you suggesting that nobody is above average (or below it)? Otherwise I can't see why you'd find such a claim so obviously erroneous.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes, it has been done.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes. That's the point I'm making.
Quoting Isaac
You understand the use of conditionals, yes.
Great -- but that's not what you were asking for, when discussing "MY numbers."
If this counts as the kind of number you want, fine -- then simply divide the vaccine data into men and women, and compare rates of death. They'll be exceedingly low in both groups -- but at least you'll have what you wanted.
Quoting Isaac
I'm not talking about laws of probability, I'm talking about actual probability. Namely, that there were 150 (roughly) strokes out of 10,000,000 cases studied. That's 150/10,000,000. That's a 0.000015% chance of stroke, using that size. You could look up the statistics for death around the world out of 6 billion shots given and see what you find. Looking for something more specific? Fine -- look at that, too.
If you're looking for statistics specifically for you, that makes no sense. I have no idea what that means if it doesn't mean removing yourself from probabilities. If the probability of having a stroke is .000015%, that pertains to you as well -- as much so as a roulette wheel.
Quoting Isaac
So you agree the vaccines are safe. Fantastic.
So what's the problem?
Quoting Isaac
Above average for what? As human beings? When you say that the probabilities or prevalence applies to an average, and so doesn't apply to you because you're above average, what exactly are you talking about? -- and how do you know? Are you talking about height? Weight? Chess skill? IQ?
You've already acknowledged the vaccines are not dangerous. So I'm failing to see the relevance of even discussing this.
Quoting Isaac
The numbers still apply to you, as they apply to everyone, despite not having an individualized number. If that's what's required in order to count as "risk based," then there's never any risk based analysis. When you want to weigh the risk of flying in an airplane --" sorry, it's just prevalence, and doesn't pertain to me, because there's not a number risk number for me specifically."
It's really an absurd position, if you look at it. What's the risk of taking Tylenol to you? Is there zero risk? No -- there's some risk. It's just miniscule. If you had liver disease, then perhaps it's not so miniscule. But there's a number to that subset as well, and we're in the same predicament and can make exactly the same claims: well yes, that's the prevalence within that subset, but what about ME? And so on. It's chasing a fantasy. It's like the idea of limits in calculus -- you'll never get there, but that's not the point.
And you still have nothing to offer to those damaged by the vaccines and their close ones.
All you can offer is the standard rhethoric of risk, luck, and large populations. This is shallow.
All the evidence in the world changes nothing for those damaged by the vaccines and other medical treatments.
Here, I posted a thread on this quite a while back, but it generated little interest: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10157/how-to-come-to-terms-with-being-an-expendable-cog-in-the-system
Quoting baker
Quoting Xtrix
Oh for fuck's sake. Do you have plastic flowing in your veins or what?!
Now sit down and think long and heard about what "luck" means in terms of science.
Chance is the end of science. We do science in order to overcome chance.
Quoting Xtrix
I mean, really. What is wrong with you?!
Must you yourselves suffer strokes from the vaccine in order to even begin to have empathy for iatrogenic diseases?
You think people should be consoled by a reference to luck?!
That kind of sounds contemptuous.
Quoting baker
If you want to talk about the philosophy of science, we can. Until then, let's not pretend anything you've just said is simple and uncontroversial. It isn't. The idea of what we "do" when we're "doing" science isn't known. Ideas about the scientific "method," and whether it even exists, is a big subject on its own. And so on.
Good to keep in mind before giving advice to people about "sitting down and thinking long and hard" about science. I wouldn't even mind your condescension if you had done anything to earn it. So far, you simply haven't made a strong argument about anything when it comes to this issue.
Yes, when running experiments, we sometimes try to overcome chance. When I say, "some people are unlucky," that has nothing to do with science, it's a simple matter of probability. I was referring to the 150 or so people who suffered strokes, out of 10,000,000. I would say that's unlikely, and so those people are fairly unlucky to be in that group of people who have suffered from it. That's a judgment call -- perhaps it's not "unlucky". That's a colloquial term. But more precisely: it's highly improbable.
Quoting baker
Interesting way of communicating from someone who feels entitled to give others lectures about the importance of communicating well. Doesn't mean the advice is wrong, of course -- it just means you're a complete hypocrite.
Quoting baker
Hmm....sound like anyone we know?
Quoting baker
Of course I have empathy for these people, as I've said repeatedly and which you ignored. You asked for consolation...what can I possibly give for consolation? It doesn't make the choice to take a vaccine stupid, it means it was a good decision and you got very unlucky. It's the same thing if you reverse the issue, and someone spends $1,000 bucks for a 0.000015% chance of winning $100,000 and does, indeed, win. That doesn't mean the decision a wise one -- it means they were incredibly lucky.
That has nothing to do with empathy. That's an attempt to offer "consolation." My only consolation, in general, is the idea that you made a good decision despite a negative outcome. That's very difficult for most people to understand, because almost everyone is results-oriented -- we see this is poker as well, and other areas involving probability.
But speaking of empathy...what is your consolation for the 4.5 million people who have died of COVID while you talk up the minuscule risk involved in the vaccines? What about the 95%+ of hospitalizations among the unvaccinated in the US? Where's your empathy and consolations for them -- a far, far larger group than those who have suffered from strokes?
Interesting to be such an advocate for one group while entirely ignoring another, larger group with far higher rates of fatality.
I've wondered about this in Australia. Apparently something like one third of all mortgage holders are right on the edge in regards to being able to service their mortgage. Governments payments to secure jobs will end when we come out of lock-down and "life returns to the new normal", so many people will be economically affected by that which may lead to defaults and foreclosures and if house prices suddenly declined (amazingly they've risen more in the last year than at any time since the late eighties) and margin calls are made, or if interest rates rise, then there would likely be a huge number of defaults. Would the banks foreclose on all those (which would cause property prices to plummet causing even more defaults in a vicious feedback loop) or would they instead assume ownership of the properties and become the new order of landlords?
I think the banks would try to work with people until the economy is rolling again. That's what's happening here.
The banks would rather give people time to recover than end up with a glut of foreclosures, so they take the initiative to connect people with the various funds set aside for covid recovery and work with people to create affordable payment schedules.
You should know better.
There is less fault with the anti-vaccers, becuse their stance is a reaction, a revolt against the normalization of scientism, against capitalist exploitation, against being ruled by aged adolescents with advanced degrees.
Every day, I turn on the news and I see people in their 40's, 50's, 60's and older, high politicians, people with advanced degrees, money, and political power who have the emotional maturity of adolescents and who are enforcing a culture of plebeian mediocrity upon everyone.
I can't say that I'm not glad to see that scientism and capitalism are digging their own grave. Granted, at an enormous cost to human life and to the planet, but still, a grave.
You asked for an example. You know what an example is, right?
Quoting Xtrix
So there are no variables involved at all? Strokes are a random event, like the roulette ball? Do you have any supporting evidence for this. It's not my area of expertise, but I thought strokes had physiological causes.
Quoting Xtrix
Literally everything I've written over the last200 pages, but by all means don't let what I actually write get in the way of your little avatar of me against whom you're arguing, it's a fantastically grotesque golem and you seem to be having enormous fun fighting it, I wouldn't want to get in the way.
Quoting Xtrix
The variables which influence the probabilities we're talking about. But I see from your roulette wheel example, that you're of the opinion that probabilities are not influenced by variables at all and that every event we might discuss is basically random like a roulette wheel. That would explain why you're having so much trouble understanding this. Of course it wouldn't explain why you bother, say, putting a seatbelt on. If your risk of dying in a car crash just is exactly the prevalence of car crash deaths then there's little point, you can't do anything about it, it's just random, like the roulette wheel...
Quoting Xtrix
Well yes. The prevalence of dying in a plane crash as a measure of risk definitely doesn't apply to me if I don't fly. It doesn't apply to me if I only choose the safest airlines, it doesn't apply to me if fly six times a day, it doesn't apply to me if refuse to put the seatbelt on when instructed, it doesn't apply to me if I'm elderly, frail, or otherwise compromised... I'm delighted to have found such an unusual view of risk, but I'm struggling to see how it's maintained in the face of such obvious evidence to the contrary. The prevalence is a sum of the effects of all the variables, any individual will have their own unique measure in each variable, only the average in all variable will have a risk approximate to the prevalence. At least that's how it's normally done. You've yet to walk me through this new maths of your. So please...you have the prevalence of an event, your claim is that you can go directly to a calculation of the individual risk of that event without measuring any variables at all. This would turn the whole field of risk analysis on it's head, you do realise what a game-changing piece of mathematics you've stumbled on here?
Quoting Xtrix
So we should never start? That seems a little daft. So assessing someone's risk for lung cancer you'd just take the prevalence of lung cancer deaths and say "that's it", yes? If another doctor said "what about the variables like smoking, sex, obesity, history, age..." you'd say "that's just chasing a fantasy, you can't get a truly individualised risk so don't even bother starting"?
I trust nobody is stoping you from trying to calculate your individual risk. Don't ask others to calculate it for you though. We don't give a rat's ass.
Still having trouble with the actual line of argument I see.
Quoting Isaac
Do you understand the point of this sentence at all? It's in the form if A then B right? So if A is the case, then B follows. How do you get out of that the notion that I think A ought or ought not to be the case? Talk me through the thought process that lead you from reading a perfect clear use of a conditional to a notion that I'm advocating for one of the elements in it.
Let me try to make it clearer. If I say "if you can't produce your ID then I can't let you in", am I suggesting that you ought to produce your ID? No. You could simply not produce your ID and I not let you in.
Or try "if you don't give me a pencil, I can't write my name", you might well still not give me a pencil and I not write my name, yes? Nothing in the line of argument advocates for you (or anyone ) providing me with personalised risk data, it is an argument claiming that without personalised risk data, the decision is not really about risk.
I do. You are asking others to do your homework for you. But nobody cares about you enough to give you these numbers...
So, no then.
One last try. If I say "if you don't shoot me, then I'll live to see another day" am I asking you to shoot me?
So your question was rhetorical. Drumroll.
It still manifests bad faith. Because you are a scientist, you must know that no measurement can be perfectly precise; there's always a margin of error. And you must know that the risks taken by one particular individual are impossible to measure. Therefore you should know that you are asking for the impossible. Twice. That's a bit much, even rhetorically.
When people speak of risk-based decision making, they are not talking of perfect estimates of risks across the whole demographic. They are speaking of basing their decisions on the best estimate of risks one can get at any given time.
Is the prevalence of deaths from COVID the best estimate of risk available for any individual? Is the national R0 value the best available estimate of an individual's risk of transmission? Are global deaths to date the best available estimate of future global mortality risk? Is the current economic and social impact the best available estimate of future economic and social impact?
No, no, no, and no. And yet they're brought up again and again as if they were counter arguments to risk-based strategies.
Risk analysis is not perfect, but it's a damn sight more complex than the naïve presentation of national prevalence statistics we see posted here masquerading as serious analysis.
Imagine a person (X1) has a knife, one big enough to kill, he kills a person. Someone (X2) finds the murder weapon, the knife. X2 makes two copies of the knife and gives one to another dude (X3). X2 uses the knife to off a person and X3 does the same. A person (X4) finds the X2's knife and another chap (X5) finds X3's knife. The process of copying the knives each one of these murderers leave behind is reiterated and so are the murders. The question is: What killed these people? People or knives?
You play hard to please. The data is never good enough for you.
The data is fine. Not as good as it could be, but mostly fine. What I take issue with is the refusal to address it in favour of these huge broad brush simplifications that institutions like the media and public health announcements deal in.
If that's all anyone wants to discuss then this whole thread is pointless. There's nothing whatsoever of interest there.
-Are a lot of people dying from COVID? Yes. Tragic global event. Dull conversation.
-Are there discrepancies in the way COVID deaths are recorded which might have implications for risk analysis? Yes. Global import, much lower. Conversational interest, significantly higher.
-Is vaccination good public policy? Yes. Very important message to get across. Totally dull conversation.
-Are there issues with the vaccination program (even though they don't necessarily effect the overall public policy)? Yes. Not a very important public health message. A significantly more interesting topic of conversation.
If all you want to talk about is the easy, broad issue stuff that anyone sane already agrees with then I can't see how a discussion forum is the best place for you to pursue that interest, particularly one focused on philosophy.
Still it is important in any philosophical discussion to clarify points of agreement, if only to stay away from them afterward.
In this case, thank you for stating that:
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
If it is important to get that message across, it is also important not to counter that message with fabricated or artificial doubt. Which implies a responsibility to not spread fabricated or artificial doubt.
So when you focus on points of disagreement, be careful not to muddle the discourse and make it look like full of doubts and disagreements when there aren't.
The issue was not the action taken but the action suggested, which was "bashing them on the snout".
Quoting T Clark
The pandemic has done serious damage across the world. If China's rulers have any culpability in this, then I think it stands to reason that they should be held to account. This is what we have international laws for.
Besides, you said that you have no objection:
Quoting T Clark
Quoting T Clark
Well, that's where we have to disagree.
"National Socialist" means "Nazi", i.e. Socialist + Nationalist. China has a long history of discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities like Tibetans and Uighurs. It has concentration camps. It is militaristic and expansionist, etc. So, it seems to have all the features of a Nazi dictatorship.
Plus, if something is admittedly "bad", then the international community must ensure that it does not spread.
It's not China we need to worry about. It's the extent to which the medical establishment are hopelessly tangled up in this. After having published a disgraceful set-piece letter to which leading geneticists obediently put their name, The Lancet initiates a 'task force' to look into the whole matter on which is the same fucking person who funded the damn thing and wrote the letter denying it was possible. If anything China are just being used as a conveniently deniable tool, just like offshore interrogation centres were.
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2414
This is the same academic establishment whose 'consensus' is apparently so beyond rational reproach.
Might be a bit late now.
IMO China is run by brutal dictators with an appalling human-rights record and a very long history of suppressing ethnic and religious minorities.
But I agree that the pandemic has exposed some unsettling facts about the academic community and academic publications.
So, yes, it looks like an investigation by The Daily Telegraph has shown that of the 27 scientists who wrote a letter in The Lancet medical journal dismissing the possibility that Covid-19 originated from a Wuhan lab, 26 have links to its Chinese researchers, their colleagues or its benefactors.
REVEALED: 26 out of the 27 Lancet scientists who trashed theory that Covid leaked from a Chinese lab have links to Wuhan researchers - Daily Mail
If we can't trust our own scientists, that's bad news for everybody. It looks like our leaders are becoming increasingly unreliable and unaccountable. We can get rid of dodgy political leaders even if it may take years, but how do you get rid of dodgy scientists and professors?
I don't think that need be relegated to an opinion.
Quoting Apollodorus
First and foremost the fault lies with the scientific community. In my opinion...
1. Nothing which is not fully pre-registered, should be considered a valid study. Full stop. That means data gathering, exclusion policies, statistical methodology (including any code), and significance limits.
2. Studies which refuse to publish their raw data should likewise be rejected.
3. Journals should actively pursue conflict of interest statements - it's about the most important aspect of peer review and currently it's treated like it's a token exercise.
4. Journals should publish null results in good proportion to positive ones.
5. Industry should not be allowed to fund, lobby, or employ from key research fields.
For anyone who thinks the above sound like the sort of reasonable and fair standards good studies probably meet, none of the studies relating to COVID vaccine effectiveness has met these standards, not a single one.
Yes, a poor choice of words, although it was meant metaphorically. @tim wood takes pride and pleasure in being cantankerous. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Quoting Apollodorus
I'm ok with that.
Quoting Apollodorus
The US has a long history of discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities like black people and American Indians. It has had concentration camps - reservations for American Indians, internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War 2. It is militaristic and expansionist, etc.
No, I don't think the US is national socialist.
Quoting Daily Mail Online
, The Sun already ran an article about that, posted here on the forum.
As per this old comment, I'd watch out for the slant they put on their ("impartial") articles.
(And with "REVEALED", now a bit pseudo-sensational, too.)
The BMJ article is more measured.
I'll continue to look for the one you're after though "Everything's absolutely fine, no-one did anything wrong because all our scientists are saints who are incapable of any deception or bias, nothing to see here". I think possibly the NEJM ran that one, I'll check.