Not my fault that you take these Mullahs of American Christianity seriously. — StreetlightX

It's just a worthless ad hom argument. Even if the ad hom attacks were correct it would have no bearing on whether there were legitimate grounds to regulate abortion.

But to the extent you wish your ad homs to be taken seriously, no, there is nothing similar with those who oppose abortion and those who systematically attempted to eradicate the Jews. I don't follow why you ridicule Mullahs, but maybe it's just to engage in a rant against every religion you can think of.

But, as I said before, exceptionally poor posting.

What a terrible post.

I think you're making assumptions. It's not from observation, that was my point. — frank

Sure, and my point was that unless you're going to fall into some sort of solipsism, you have to make assumptions based upon the observations you make. My goats engage in intentional behavior that clouds and rocks do not. The rock does not stubbornly sit before me refusing to respond to change in a literal sense.

But, if there is some philosophical theory that will unravel for you if it requires you hold that goats cannot engage in intentional conduct, and I have to use the cloud analogy to substantiate that goats don't engage in intentional conduct, then I feel fairly satisfied in rejecting whatever that theory is.

Nah, this kinda stuff has nothing to do with the life of children. It's just punishment for women who have sex. That's it. It's pretty straightforward misogyny. Anyone who thinks these people have any concern for children has not looked paid any attention to how they treat children. Except "I fucking hate women and hope they are miserable forever if they enjoy themselves even slightly" is a harder sell than "I like unborn children". — StreetlightX

That's not what the people say who oppose abortion, so you've psychoanalyzed them all, including the women who hold that position and determined them all liars?

This is a really weak position you've taken, which is to dismiss the arguments as lies and refuse to consider them on the merits. I can say that I would object to an abortion at 8 months. Do I hate women?

Also of course this is entirely untrue. Or at least, you just need to substitute one woman hating religion for another. Everything else is cosmetic. — StreetlightX

You're now submitting that life for women in the US is as oppressive as it is soon to be under Taliban rule. This is just empirically false, so I don't see this as even ripe for philosophical debate.

So why aren't clouds intelligent? Don't your observations show that they are? They don't dilly dally running in circles when they come to a low pressure zone. They go straight to raining as your goats go to the barn — frank

How do I conclude you are intelligent and not a cloud responding to pressure zones?

The elephant in t he room is this "presence" that is noumenal that is right there IN the empirical event unfolding before my eyes and mind. — Constance

The elephant as you've described it here is the phenomena, not the noumena. If not, how do you distinguish the phenomenal and noumenal?

We assume goats are doing something extra, that involves some sense of self even if mostly unanalyzed. — frank

I assume the inner workings of my mind are the same as yours and to a lesser degree my goat's. I'm not sure why animal minds should be treated as operating on some markedly different way than human minds. It seems you're trying to sustain some language based intelligence philosophy and are willing to bend your observations for that. My dog remembers all sorts of stuff. I see it every day.

Some Democrat state should make an equivalent law regarding buying guns or registering as a Republican and see if the Supreme Court will make the same decision. — Michael

Some Republican state like Texas should pass a law prohibiting abortion and the Court could rule that abortion is a protected right under the Constitution and they could call that case Roe v. Wade. That'll teach em.

No wonder the US gifted Afghanistan to the Taliban. They share the same hateful, fucked up, attitudes towards woman. — StreetlightX

This isn't correct on a couple of levels, the first being that life for a woman in Afghanistan bears little resemblance for life as a woman in the US, with likely 0% of the US women wishing Taliban policies would be instituted in the US upon them.

The other being that I take the pro-life folks at their word that their concern is over fetal rights and not a desire to subjugate women. Every reasonable person within the abortion debate places some limit on when abortions can occur based upon the belief at some point the fetus does have protectable rights. The fact that you place that number at 3 months (or whenever) and Texas at 6 weeks is an important distinction, but it doesn't make them hateful and fucked up.

Good question. I'm guessing they mostly run on emotion. Their memory is emotional instead of intellectual. — frank

Why must you concoct such odd solutions to the question of how goats remember? My dog's behavior (and my cat's and my chickens to some degree) all exhibit behaviors strikingly similar to memory based behavior that I see in those with language.

The idea that when a rainstorm comes my goats run in circles for a covered area, testing each spot for how dry it is, with every new rainstorm a new adventure in searching for cover, is a strange suggestion. It sure looks to me like they run to the barn because they know where the barn is and they know that the barn offers them shelter from the storm. If the roof collapses one day on their head, it'll probably be some time before they go back in, having remembered the time they got bumped on the head.

The important difference with universal healthcare and private healthcare insurance is that the decisions on what to cover isn't a cost-benefit analysis with respect to profit for private companies but instead about an efficient distribution of cost and effective care. — Benkei

This will take us maybe too far afield because I don't want to turn this into a debate over the virtues of capitalism versus socialism, but, suffice it to say that even in a purely profit driven environment, a business entity must remain focused upon supplying services based upon the demand if it wants to realize profit. That is, an insurer can't expect to have subscribers if it excludes benefits for expected illnesses.

But back to what's interesting here:

This is a misrepresentation of my argument. I'm not arguing about the moral worth of a person, I'm arguing about taking into account culpable behaviour that contributes to the hospitalization. In a car accident where there's a victim and a speedster and only one operating room available and operating one means the other dies, I'd save the victim first. Why? Because the perpetrator has culpably contributed to his own hospitalisation. That lowers the responsibility on others to save him. I don't find this an ethically difficult position to hold. — Benkei

Let's start with the recognition that you are advocating for a radical departure from the current standard. You are asking that when intake nurses and doctors take patient histories that their purpose go beyond arriving at the best means of medical care, but you're asking that they perform some sort of inquiry into culpability for the patient's current condition. How far you wish to take that is the question for the slippery slope, as in, do we limit it to detecting perpetrators versus victims for the specific illness that has brought that patient in that day or do we do full assessments of the person to determine their general worthiness for this limited resource? If you wish to limit the inquiry as described, recognize that limitation is policy based, but not principle based, and is therefore arbitrary.

There are obvious pragmatic issues here, as in how are we to make such determinations in a medical care setting, clearly not wishing to have investigators, witnesses, advocates, and judges considering who is culpable and who is not in a room adjacent to the ER, and it's fairly obvious doctors would not have the skill, time, or inclination to engage in the justice administration process.

But pragmatic issues aside, the ethical issues are more pressing. Since this is all hypothetical thought experiment sort of stuff, we can simply erase the pragmatic concerns by inserting King Solomon in every ER, filled with the divine wisdom to immediately and accurately identify who the good are from the bad, the right from the wrong, and the culpable from the victimized. Even under that scenario, I would still object that it is an unethical enterprise.

To bring this point home more clearly I think, I'll remove this from the hypothetical world and take it outside the setting of emergency care, where there are in fact patients who have had full investigations, jury trials, and rounds of appeals and who now sit in prison cells. Ought we afford them less care than others?

How do you remember what you can't put into words? — frank

My goats run to their barn when I arrive with treats. How do they remember to do that?

So clarify for me what this is specifically about. My understanding of the Texas law is that it provides civil remedies against abortion clinics and those who profit from abortions (not the women themselves) performed after the fetus is 6 weeks old. The Plaintiffs in those suits may be ordinary citizens, apparently granting standing to the general public.

This is not a criminal law, correct? That being the case, abortions have not been banned, but abortion clinics will be subject to potential civil penalty in the event they are successfully sued.

The question then becomes one of immediate harm that would warrant injunctive relief. Abortion clinics may continue to operate in Texas, and they will no doubt be sued, but any judgment would be appealable on the basis of the Constitutional violation, meaning no actual judgment could be enforced prior to the Court eventually ruling.

This is distinct from a criminal matter where an abortion clinic doctor would be immediately incarcerated for performing an abortion and the matter would immediately find its way in the courts. In a criminal law scenario, an abortion clinic could be raided and shut down by the government, but that is not the case here

I recognize the denial of the injunctive relief places the abortion clinics in peril because they may one day be assessed significant monetary penalty if the law is upheld, but, as a highly technical matter, the denial of injunctive relief prior to the adjudication of the legal matter on its merits is not that uncommon. Whether the litigants are placed in immediate harm due to fear that Roe v. Wade might be overturned and the civil law upheld is that technical question that at least gives some colorable basis for denial of the injunctive relief.

The outrage is likely more due to the signaling that Roe v. Wade might soon be overturned and what is now considered a civil right is going to be removed. But should this have been a law of a different sort granting a new form of civil remedy, I'm not sure it would be so surprising if the injunctive relief was denied.

In any event, this procedural moment will be a minor footnote in history if Roe v. Wade is squarely overturned. The need for such complicated schemes to limit abortions will not need to be made.

And for the record, I am pro-choice, but just trying to make sense out of the situation.

But it's not the same logic because there's nothing barring you to return home and get the shoes. In the examples I give, a decision has to be made. Both patients need care equally. Justice isn't the first consideration in triage but it certainly is one of them. Other things being equal, I think the decision not to get vaccinated and requiring a scarce resource like an IC bed or a vent as a result of that decision and when other people need it just as badly can and should be taken into account.

And while we're at it. In the Netherlands we have universal healthcare and there are serious debates about whether to treat certain patients due to limited resources. The anesthesiologists I mentioned recently took a minority position to treat a 90-year old woman for heart surgery. Everybody else argued not to do it, too old, much too likely to develop complications from the procedure and likely not to fully recover. He argued differently because in her particular case she had never had need for extended care or other operations. — Benkei

A couple of things from this:

When the US was debating universal public healthcare, one of the things that derailed it was the Republican argument that there would be "death committees" that would be charged with determining who was provided care and who wasn't. The Democrats responded that was hyperbolic and inaccurate. As you've stated it though, you seem to accept that some government accounting committee would in fact intervene in the decision of who gets what health care and who does not. That is, you seem to be generally agreeing there will be and should be such death committees. That seems to me a hard strike against public health care ever coming to exist in the US if it were to move forward in the way you've suggested.

The way I see it is far more moderate though. I would expect at some level decisions have to be made regarding protecting limited resources. If we have but one heart and 5 who need it, we do need to have some criteria for determining who gets it. The question is what the criteria should be for making that determination. I would limit the question to the medical issues, such as what is the prognosis of this procedure on person A versus person B. If you find yourself a in true to life situation where providing care to A will mean B will go without (and I don't think your example of the 90 year actually was that), then you would need to look at potential outcomes when determining who gets the care.

What we should be forbidden to consider are factors surrounding the ethical worth of the two individuals, where the good hearted humanitarian gets the heart but Ebenezer Scrooge is left to die or where the prostitute is overlooked, but the community leader gets the nod, or, more pointedly, where the vaccinated gets care and the unvaccinated gets denied. We also should be forbidden to use the operating room as a means to advance social justice or the like, where certain historically disadvantaged groups are provided special (or reduced) privilege. Should that occur (and when you opened the door to looking at justice as a means to divvy up care, I think you do that), that would create a significant ethical problem for me. It would also create a pragmatic problem because it would be politically rejected and it would likely unravel the system, with people creating all sorts of work arounds and refusals to participate.

The point here is that if we have less beds than we do sick people, we need to triage those beds to those who are most in need, as opposed to weighing the ethical value of the people before us and then assigning beds.

The support for my ethical argument is that I hold to the proposition that all people are of infinite value, rejecting the idea that people become ethically devalued under any circumstance. I'd also add that even if I did allow that some do become worth less through their behavior (which I don't), I would still believe that making the determination of how reduced their value now is is well beyond the determination of any committee.

Just to summarize, should we need to assign health care due to limited resources, those decisions are to be made from need considerations, not from justice considerations. Let's leave the politics out of the OR.

But let's start somewhere. Let's assume you have perfect knowledge and there are two patients, male, 26-years old, both have COVID, one is vaccinated the other isn't. Both need a vent and there's only one vent. Who gets the vent? Is this an obvious case to you? If not, why not? — Benkei

I responded to this just above, and I'd add in the equation that justice does not demand that the consequences of bad behavior naturally flow or bear direct connection with the bad act. That is to say it is not just to require my son to walk with no shoes in the snow because he forgot them at home. Maybe he will have an extra chore or the like, but frostbite is not a just dessert just because it's a naturally occurring dessert.

So, applying the same logic, I would not demand you lose priority for the vent based upon your bad behavior of vaccine refusal, but I could certainly see insurance refusals, hospital surcharges, or other penalties short of having your medical care altered.

Could you give your perspective on whether healthcare should be allotted according to the choices a person has made? So that if resources were tight, vaccinated people would be prioritized over non-vaccinated?

Does that sound ethical to you? — frank

If you show up in the ER from a car wreck and you weren't wearing your seatbelt, end of the line for you!

Typically a patient is triaged based upon the seriousness of their condition and not upon the cold demands of justice. It's for that reason a doctor would doubtfully wish to exit the medical arena and enter the legal or ethical one and decide who should get treatment based upon some non-medical reason.

It's for that reason (in part), I'm in favor of requiring vaccines. We live in a society that, for better or worse, does not force you to sleep in the bed you made. If someone, through all his stupid decisions, finds himself drunk, broke, and beaten in a gutter, the same ambulance that would swoop me or you up is going to swoop him up, and he's going to be taken in for the same treatment as you or I will.

So, no, I don't think it's ethical to ask doctors to triage based upon non-medical reasons, and I don't think it's ethical to put yourself in a position where you are going to require greater use of limited public resources when you could so easily have done otherwise.

My response is to some degree pragmatic because you asked what should be done, and I said what will be done, regardless of the should. We're just not going to prioritize the responsible people over the irresponsible people in the ER. The responsible people are going to have to accept that they receive their positive comeuppance every day other than while in the ER with better jobs, better relationships, and overall better existences.

Then how do my assertions acquire validity at all? It is via the elephant in the room: existence. Put one's attention on the reduction of the actuality that lies before one, reducing its Being to appearance, to phenomena only, dismissing all else. My claim is that this is an astonishing method of foundational thinking that intimates something deeply important about being here. — Constance

If I'm following...

You're referencing sort of a raw data feed that enters your brain, unprocessed at all by reason. It's a hyper-empiricism, devoid of rational organization within the mind. Was this not part of Kant's project in responding to Hume? That is, we can't see the causation when one billiard ball hits the other, so our mind imposes it, which is no different than all the other things our mind imposes on the world in order to understand it, whether that be space, time, or other sorts of things?

The immediate sense impression you reference doesn't make sense to me because it would necessarily be mediated in some way. That mediation isn't limited to sense organs, but by reason itself, which is in fact impacted by language.

So explain to me the elephant just as it is, unmediated by sensory organs or reason. How could that ever be done - the pure unadulterated elephant?

In closing, just to give some insight, Prishon was asked to slow down his posting, not only by the mods, but by other posters, and a good number of his posts had been deleted as had some of his threads, not just for sheer quantity but for quality. Prishon conducted years worth of postings in less than two weeks and received more modding in those two weeks than most receive in a lifetime. The modding was by multiple mods acting independently.

Instead of having to create a posting governor that automatically limits posting as some have suggested, a reduction and improvement in posting should be achievable by simply being asked. I know some have speculated other issues might have been at play with his mental state, but that's not really something any of us can assess remotely nor can we be excepted to provide special accommodation for it.

Religion changes what is going on to match what is said. The world is made to fit the theology. — Banno

If you're using religion to understand how the physical world works, sure, that's a bad move.

Religion brings about the Taliban. — Banno

And science the hydrogen bomb, and governments oppression, and charities manipulation, and ice cream sellers pedophilia, and pet sellers pet abusers, and on and on.

Some people suck. Some find their way back through religion. Some maybe find their way back through observing a well laid science experiment. Could be. Doubtful, but maybe.

Do you distinguish the Lutherans from the Taliban? What about the Mormons, the Catholics, or the Jews? Is your position that religion begets evil in all its forms, thus justifying your generalized attack on it, or do you just wish to remind us that the Taliban is a bad group of guys?

@Prishon banned for low quality posts.

seems to be saying that speech is magic. — frank

The significance of speech in Judaic thought is a thing (tracht gut vet zein gut, and lashon hara), but I'm having trouble correlating that to contemporary linguistic theory.

So, the NT King James version uses the word "word" as the definition of "logos" in the opening line of John in the sentence "In the beginning was the logos" From that,
you guys are creating this whole Wittgenstein like theory about how everything derives from words.

I'd think the way to interpret that line should probably come from a Biblical literary analysis. Otherwise, you guys could be very wrong here.

Lexi is Greek for "word" by the way.

This is something I've discussed many times on the forum. If you haven't seen those posts, now is not the time to go into it. — T Clark

Send me the link to this past discussion so that I can get up to speed.

Gods are eternal. They posses the magic essence. They created the world in their image. So the world is eternal and magic filled. The eternal magic is created by divine words only. Which goes to show that in the beginning there was the word. Spoken by gods for the holy trinity to emerge. From which we and every living creature are formed. In the beginning there was one-ness. Shifting over time in a dual interdependend world united by the magic bodies that we are. In between we are. The contemplation of the holy trinity unit is heard by revelations. To be spread by the word. I give you that words. — Prishon

If you are suggesting that "gods" generically adhere to the description provided, that would simply be incorrect to the extent there are religions that do not hold as you have alleged. If you are suggesting this is Christianity (as I might glean from your reference to the trinity), you'll need to give textual support for it. Your reference to gods (in the plural) speaking in order to cause the emergence of the trinity (which is understood as a single entity) presents a claim that the gods created God, which is not Christianity, but is a polytheism that posits a theogony (as in who gave birth to the gods, as you see in Greek mythology), which is something the OT clearly does not do.

All of this strikes me as confused and confusing, but if you have some clarification for it, please share.

To the extent that the scope of most religious theory is universal, it feels almost disingenuous to suggest that we can really move between religions in response to our aesthetic sensibilities. — Ennui Elucidator

The inability to move between religions accounts for why most hold to the religion of their upbringing. The foundational mythology of most religions is too fantastical for most to covert to. I can buy into the Mormon ethic generally for instance, but literal acceptance of Joseph Smith's discovery of mystical gold plates is well beyond my ability to accept. I think an introspective person of faith should recognize the vulnerabilities of their own faith in that they are accepting beliefs that will be fantastical to others, all the while recognizing that those foundational beliefs do lead to the discovery of spiritual truths. It matters not that the foundational mythology is literally false in any religious tradition. Ideally, all of this should lead those of faith to greater tolerance of other's beliefs out of recognition that both are seeking the same answers, while both recognize that both live in glass houses in terms of provability of their myths.

Those who attempt to cure the problem of limiting themselves to their own religion in search of spiritual answers by abandoning the concept of literalism, likely find that solution not workable either. Openness to wisdom and spiritual advancement requires great trust and great attention to what is being taught. That trust comes naturally to the Catholic of the Priest and to the Jew of the Rabbi, but it's often difficult for those of different faiths to convince one another of their wisdom, even if the wisdom each ultimately is advocating is the same.

Well...you know...I kind of do. — T Clark

If the world began when language began, then millions of years prior to the evolution of language existed in some non-existent state, whatever that means.

Religion generally deals with issues of the origins and nature of reality, ontology, so, of course it's philosophy. — T Clark

The fact that they both attempt to answer the same questions doesn't make them the same fields. If that were the case, then science would be philosophy and religion would be science because all three deal with ontological questions.

Reliance upon sacred texts, deities, and the supernatural are well within the purview of religion, but not of philosophy.

I do agree that that religion often does delve deeply into ontology, but not always and not necessarily. Even in the Western tradition, the OT offers only a very short account of the origin of the universe, and it provides no explanation for where God came from. But, see, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theogony for other theological systems that do.

What, exactly, was there in the beginning such that to utter the words makes beginnings possible at all? In the beginning there was the word? — Constance

This is from John 1:1 from the New Testament. My understanding is that "the word" is the translation of the Greek logos, which is understood as Jesus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos_(Christianity).

Take this quite literally: How are such things that are "begun" to be conceived prior to their beginning; or, what is presupposed by a beginning? An absolute beginning makes no sense at all, for to begin would have to be ex nihilo and this is a violation of a foundation level intuition, a causeless cause, spontaneously erupting into existence simply is impossible, just as space cannot be conceived to "end". — Constance

This is Genesis 1:1 from the Old Testament.

Richard Friedman in "Commentary on the Torah" offers a direct translation from the Hebrew as "In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth - when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and God's spirit was hovering on the face of the water, God said "let there be light,."

This does not suggest creation ex nihilo, but suggests God created order from the pre-existing chaos.

The real question is, does the world "speak"? — Constance

I don't think that is the question at all. The NT "in the beginning there was the word" is not meant to replace the OT account of creation and beginnings. You're reading John 1:1 as a Wittgensteinian commentary on the primacy of language, but it's not, and no one suggests that the world did not exist prior to language.

We have a bible belt where people don't get the measles vaccine either and every 10-15 years or so there's an outbreak — Benkei

The outbreaks were in New York, Washington, Oregon, Michigan, New Jersey, and California, not the bible belt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_resurgence_in_the_United_States

The original anti-vaxxers were left wing. Today the Trumpians have joined forces to some degree, although they have arrived at their own medical science consisting of ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and drinking bleach.

. People from lower socio-economic backgrounds are disproportionally sanctioned for breaking laws with less leniency applied. That's in part institutional racism, in part network corruption and part knowing how to deal with authorities (and sometimes even just speaking the language and understanding your rights). — Benkei

As an aside, what you describe isn't institutionalized racism, but institutionalized classism. Race might distinguish class in certain societies, but I think an often overlooked issue is the role of class in society regardless of race. Equating race and class suggests a monolithic white class structure, as if Appalachian whites who originated as indentured servants and freed prisoners are of the same class today as New England whites originating from the English aristocracy.

We never mandated measles vaccines, which was much, much worse in terms of infection rate and slightly higher death rate but also risk of blindness. — Benkei

They were mandated in certain settings. I recall there being a measles vaccine mandate when I was in public school and having to stand in line in the high school gym to get vaccinated.

I know to register my kids in school, I had to submit proof of vaccinations, and they couldn't enter university without providing vaccine proof. In the early 90s, I worked for the prosecutor's office and I had to go to the public health clinic and get some vaccines.

I see the sociological change over the past few decades not as much as a surge in belief in individual liberties, but more as a symptom of political polarization, leading to a decline in trust of non-tribal authority, and only accepting what your political allies advocate.

That you support the right for others to make stupid decisions is a principled one, and one that I can understand, but it's not one I would personally spend time fighting for. Should you win the battle and secure the common man's inherent right to be stupid, I'm not certain the world will be better off.

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. — Isaac

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.

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. — Isaac

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?

No. I'm not asking you to do anything. I haven't once made any request of anyone here nor have I judged them in any way for their choices. In fact I think you've made the right choice given what you know.

I'm defending my choice against some pretty nasty judgements. — Isaac

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.

I haven't relied on that poll for evidence of anything on which my arguments hinge. I only brought it up in response to others making equally spurious, unsupported claims about the intelligence level of the vaccine hesitant. I would not rely on it. — Isaac

Lovely. I'll strike out all prior references to it now that you withdraw it.

No. The unvaccinated hospitalised are 29.2 times more prevalent than the vaccinated hospitalised. Your likelihood would only be the same as the prevalence if hospitalisation/vaccination combinations were random, and we already know they aren't. See what I mean about statistics? — Isaac

And what is the uncontrolled variable you hypothesize that exists within the vaccinated community that has resulted in this deceptive data? I'd think the vaccinated would consist of the most vulnerable to the disease. The vaccination rates tend very high among the elderly, in many states in the high 90%.

Actually most of the people I've cited opposed to the current policies are epidemiologists. Also my personal experience. It's primarily epidemiologists, statisticians, paediatrics, and the odd few economists. But that's primarily to do with who I'm hanging around with recently. Not much call for experimental physicists in my work! That would be some very long term risk planning! — Isaac

Have you considered you might have a problem with confirmation bias here, considering you call into question basic statistical methodologies when evaluating reports submitted by the scientific community, but you treat as gospel an opinion poll posted on Facebook where people responded to questions and then self-identified their level of education? That is, we have no idea whether people voted 2, 3, or 55 times and whether they were truthful when asserting their level of education.

And even should I accept your data as truthful, do you propose I shrug off the mountain of evidence being accumulated supporting the efficiency of the vaccine reducing the Covid symptoms just because 25% of the US PhDs express some hesitancy about its efficiency?

You are 29.2 times more likely to be hospitalized if you contract Covid if you're not vaccinated. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e5.htm?s_cid=mm7034e5_x

This study came out tomorrow, August 27, 2021, so you know it's recent.

And it just got stupider: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/569152-bombshell-report-says-cyber-ninjas-leader-seriously%3famp

. My guess is that only at PhD level do you start realising what can be done by 'managing' your statistics, it changes the way one looks at data supposedly proving some point or other. That or we're all grumpy selfish bastards who no longer care because we're going to die soon anyway. — Isaac

The PhD hesitancy rate is curious, but it's still only about 25%, meaning it remains a minority position. That study doesn't identify which PhDs were represented, nor was there any confirmation of the PhD. it would be more concerning if medical based PhDs were highly represented among the skeptics, but we just don't have that information.

No objections at all. I just asked since age adjustment is done for comparative purposes and involves at least one variable. The variable was not listed so the data incomplete. — Isaac

Well, you've now been provided all the data you could possibly need to sort through.