Seriously? — frank

Good. I thought I was insane.

Really? You're still persisting? Did you even check the figures, or did you , again, just presume I must be wrong because the telly says so? — Isaac

F-that monkey noise. Tell me why your quoting British figures and trying to tell me something.

Oh, and England in the 80s had double the hospital capacity we have now. It's not hard. — Isaac

Even without taking any other public health action your 100 extra doors example is out by a thousand fold. In the US, it's half a door extra. — Isaac

An increase of only half the entire capacity? So, just make it 150% of what's available. Did I mention doormen were required. It's the same in regards to how practical it is as an undertaking.

Thirdly, I'm not, nor ever would be, advocating not using other forms if intervention - lockdowns, masks, sanitation, vaccines... I've never advocated just letting it rip. What I'm opposed to is the narrative which hides all of the massive societal failings which brought this crisis about under the blanket of vaccine hesitancy. — Isaac

No one, literally no one, blames the crisis on hesitancy for a vaccine that didn't exist. You must wear very high boots in order to safely walk around in this much bullshit.

So we take your absurd example derived from your hysterical guesswork, add some real figures from, you know, actually checking the fucking facts, and we find you're off by a factor of two thousand. — Isaac

You just extrapolated from the hospital conditions on your island to support an argument that spans the globe. Make that make sense. I'll wait.

My house is on fire! Can't be because mine isn't.

Well played.

Try to think rather than fall back on the narrative you've been fed. What doesn't make sense? — Isaac

And choose perhaps your narrative.

If you want to help prop up the corporate feeding trough by joining in this global exercise in distraction then be my guest, it only reflects poorly on your critical capacity, but don't expect to do it uncontested. — Isaac

That they can't cope with extra covid cases is not anyone's fault but the criminal lack of investment in health. — Isaac

No, it's the waste of resources that would be necessary constantly to maintain a pandemic cycle peak level of infrastructure. It would be like adding a 100 doors to every building on the off chance everyone wants to leave at once on any given day.

The problem is of a marginal rate of patients accelerating do to the acceleration in transmission. It seems too painfully obvious to argue against, so putting down these cleverly constructed absurdities just requires a frame of reference I'm not able to invoke.

If I translated what I'm reading into a fire fighting strategy it would be some acknowledgement of smoke and complete denial of fire or the possibility water should be a reasonable prescription.

If this makes sense then what is there to argue about?

Health services are not overburdened with covid cases that's the media misrepresenting the facts to sell stories. Health services are overburdened with patients, many of whom have covid infections. — Isaac

The problem is not imaginary and shifting subjects will not solve it. There is no argument.

Wrong about what? I don't see how this statement follows at all from anything I've said. — Isaac

Vaccinating people is a necessary step in the control of a pandemic. GD revolutionary idea apparently.

The point I made is that the total number of hospitalisations is made largely from other preventable lifestyle choices. If you've over-packed you suitcase, it's not compulsory to take out the last thing you put in, you can take out anything, it will have the same effect. The covid pandemic has over-burdened our health services, that doesn't somehow mean that the only way to reduce that burden has to be via reducing covid cases. — Isaac

I knew what you were getting at; but I couldn't slam my head against the wall at the correct angle in order to interpret how you found it compelling. I see the above explains the logic-sink I was originally faced with interpreting. So, it's incorrect because when the last thing you packed was an exponentially growing virial infection, then it's obvious what needs to be addressed to anyone.

So the question still stands - at this time of crisis for the health services where we desperately need to reduce the burden of services, what is the moral imperative that it must be the unvaccinated who must bear that burden (and do what they'd rather not do) when absolutely anyone using the health service to support a riskier lifestyle choice could have the same effect? — Isaac

There is no question because immoral things can be morally permissible and this is one of those cases. You don't want to help push fine; don't complain as loudly when efforts fail. I suppose as long as one refrains from deliberately transmitting a virus then they have risen to only imposable moral floor. It's beyond tedious, the only correct approach to antivaccination rhetoric is swift, uncalculated, dismission to guard against accidentally validating a phobia. Want to fix things by telling people vaccination isn't an imperative; then by all means proceed. Let me know when it starts working. Till then we'll keep digging 6ft holes, to fill with your brilliant observations.

:up:

I checked into it and the difference is demographic. 85% Adult Pop.
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/israel-50-of-infected-are-vaccinated

You are correct the New York Times isn't doing a study.

If you want to see 80% that's where you can find it. It's in an article directly addressing the issue. I don't make any further claims.

80% was the New York Times latest figure. It explains why there is high number among the vaccinated. Because they represent the super majority of anything that occurs.

I'm sure it isn't. It would need to fluctuate over a thousand-fold to affect the argument. — Isaac

I don't see the argument being affected by much of anything. It's bad enough now in my state that I just hope I'm wrong.

Why on earth wouldn't they be concerned. They're seeing thousands of extra people needing hospital treatment. I'd be concerned. — Isaac

Has bacon eating simply escalated to unheard of levels? How do you account for this anomaly of happenstance?

So it would be a problem if they didn't? — Isaac

No, generally it's frowned upon to deny people life saving care. I didn't expect that to be outside of your wheelhouse. What's the counter position? People bare the cost of the decisions they so freely made; instead of choosing to confuse their political identity with public health and safety measures. No, that wouldn't be fair, and it's what's fair that matters. Right?

I've already covered this, the whole of covid hospitalisation are about one fiftieth of those caused by obesity alone. The unvaccinated represent about half of those. — Isaac

I doubt that's a static figure. The people at the hospitals seemed concerned. Do you work at the hospital?

So explain to me why they should refuse hospital treatment and not the overweight, or smokers, or reckless drivers, or alchoholics, or bacon-eaters... — Isaac

Didn't say they should do anything. I said it wouldn't be a problem if they did.

The numbers don't bear you out. As I posted, the Israelis, who are 80% vaccintaed, report that the Pfizer shot is only 39% effective. The numbers for the other shots are in that range. And now everyone is supposed to get a booster shot. So in terms of effectiveness, the vaccines are essentially a bust. Yes they do make you less sick than you'd be otherwise; but you are just as contagious. — fishfry

I thought that data set was misleading when I checked it out last week. I believe the 39% was the lowest of quite a range being considered and that was specifically the result of the variant which the vaccine wasn't tested or designed for initially. Arguably, transmission out paced production and uptake; meaning the product itself arrived viable.

And since most people are vaxxed, the chances that the next person you run into is contagious and vaxxed or contagious and unvaxxed are more or less the same. So there's no statistical argument to be made about treating one class differently than the other on the basis of contagion. — fishfry

Like you acknowledged; I'm not arguing for any restriction on the right to free movement. But, I wouldn't extrapolate from the Israel numbers onto a millions of people population. The statistical argument is the same as it's always been. Don't over run your medical system. As long as anti-vaxer's also refuse the hospital it shouldn't be a problem.

I didn't follow exactly your analogy with the chess game. The fundamental critique Pierre Hadot makes of modern philosophy is that it has become divorced from the real life of real people and become a theoretical enterprise, an analogy with modern physics might be appropriate here. — Ross Campbell

Interesting, I'm not sure what it looks like from the position of a professional. I suppose recognizing philosophy being a subject of public interest would lead to some observations. But, I would question whether the public ever stopped doing some form of searching and questioning as part of being human.

My observation wasn't in regard to the demographic but rather the method and the disconnect with reality. The OP mentioned philosophy as an actual dialog between individuals and I recognized that as the "Ancient World", where inquiries into phenomenology and this focus on introspective frames of reference weren't the matter at hand. When philosophers are left to their own devices; the more subjective and preferential of their own cherished ideas they become. But, doing philosophy in a way that tests every sentence against a different point of view actually promotes an evolutionary process. So, instead of "being a way of life" to me it is more a matter of being useful again. In a way that is directly applicable to the interpretation of physics. It is no longer an exercise done for it's own sake, but with the aim of discovery. The belief that a philosophical discussion could stumble upon something relevant to a real problem.

The amount of online argumentation has also made the notion of fallacy a topic for individuals that would in the past stick only to rhetoric or "bumper sticker" depths of understanding. Noticing the man on the street is talking about something that's recognizable in the tower might be a different view of the world.

Just the fact that your instinct is to consistently argue against anything that would be beneficial for workers, society, or the environment, is why I repeat the sentiment, however harsh, that this old, destructive ideology you embody needs to die off with you and your ilk. Because it's apparent you're never going to wake up -- the Cold War propaganda has too much of a hold on you. — Xtrix

The instinct you keep noticing is to argue against hollow statements. You'd get the same response here selling time shares in Narnia.

I would have thought the aspiration to see things as they truly are is important. — Wayfarer

I would settle for a way to see them incrementally better over time. Knowing that what your seeing is true in an absolute sense might not be possible, but it doesn't prevent you from in fact seeing it. It is an understanding that acknowledges access to truth while accounting for unknown errors.

Prior to this, would you have trusted your government to work closely with the tobacco industry to produce a 'healthy' cigarette and not be unduly influenced by the industry's lobbying power? — Isaac

They did it's called the tobacco institute. It's about 10 miles from my location. Rather the building is currently standing.

Indeed. But you acknowledged it by making a unsupportable claim, in other words, you used a rhetorical tool to give some force to that acknowledgement. A well-known and perfectly legitimate device...or a 'lie' depending, of course, on whose side you're on. — Isaac

Seems like a valid observation. Continuing to argue based on carefully constructed attempts at mutual objectivity just warranted a beating.

I don't believe the data supporting your claims is publicly available. I don't believe it's privately available. I have my doubts about it being transcendently available too... — Isaac

Yeah I know. Yet you don't hesitate to request it at every turn. I don't think this can be reconciled by demanding black swans from one position.

No. Profits can be reinvested in the company by building new factories, buying more equipment, renovation, research, etc. They can also go to increasing worker salaries, to dividends, or to stock buybacks. — Xtrix

Yeah, the actual cash flow can be traced from the previous year into a budget. The issue is there it's just not well represented by the percent of profits table. The problem is labor market friction. The economic force that pushes up workers salaries isn't the benevolence of the human resources department. If the HR manager jacked up everyone's paycheck they would be fired. You are right about the fact a problem exist, but what's needed is an innovative solution that functions with the rest of the economic forces in play. Universal income that we saw with the COVID unemployment proves that given the option people will hold out for what they see is fair or better than fair market value for their labor.

The solution you are offering is an old one. Basically, force companies into being their own labor union or something of the sort. But, when it works it even fails. Unions operate largely on seniority and rules instead of responding to innovative performance. The power dynamic is artificially shifted and still loses the most important aspect of the goal. Which I would argue is the ability for a worker to maximize income based on performance. In order to achieve that in todays jaded world workers need the freedom to leave for better or equal pay without needing to risk their own stability in the process. Some how quantize labor inputs and create a flawless information system and methodology for allowing the changing of jobs at will. It is a system that maintains the dynamics of supply and demand, but neutralizes the disparity in company versus employee negotiating power. Then, charge companies to use it and make yourself a billionaire.

(5) Where do the profits mostly go, in today's typical fortune 500 company? — Xtrix

Profits are what's left over after all the operational expenses and taxes. It wouldn't make sense to say a companies profits go to wages, because those aren't profits by definition. In fact, all profits go to dividends or retained earnings or a reduction in retained earnings from treasury stock transactions. Once again there is something the matter; but framing it in a way that tries to hide bias is only discrediting. I'm not going on at length about this one. So, disagree, you know the song and dance to an empty house.

My aim here is to argue that the widespread and taken-for-granted intuition of the separately-existing world is really an inevitable consequence of the modern ‘post-Enlightenment’ worldview. Hence the expression, ‘Cartesian anxiety’: — Wayfarer

I don't have any trouble with that idea. There is no perfect source of knowledge and maybe without religion framing the world in extremes we wouldn't have made the assumption initially. So, we're in agreement, but perhaps for different reasons. If the current view is wrong then what is the correction?

This is obviously a big question and we’re wading into deep waters here, but consider the origins of Western philosophy, specifically the questions raised about epistemology, how we know what we know, or what we think we know. That is the problematic! — Wayfarer

It's just incorrect to expect truth to manifest itself upon our notice of a thing. As soon as we don't expect to be right all the time there's no issue in my view. How do you reconcile these errors?

It's fine to be in opposition to some perceived standard, but usually it implies another one. Which is what I'm interested in; they're wrong, no problem, what is right?

If being a product of human judgement sets us apart from discovering truth then so be it. — Cheshire

You realise how big a statement you're making there? — Wayfarer

Yes, I would tend to object to it. But, either truth is obtainable or it isn't. The process of seeing what holds and fails from different points of view implies we aren't limited to our own. The matter that its always a human point of view implies there are unknowns. I think it's reasonable to assume there will be unknowns and not always as a result of second order neglect, but human error in general. Is it problematic?

I'm not claiming that observation is rendered invalid by the requirement that there be an observer. — Wayfarer

I'm going to hold you to it.

...the oft-expressed sentiment that humanity is a 'mere blip in a vast sea of time', which, while an objectively valid judgement... — Wayfarer

Doing good here..

...neglects the fact that it is still a judgement, and one which, to our knowledge, only humans are capable of making. — Wayfarer

If it is objectively valid, then the objection is that this "neglect" reduces the quality below some standard while being technically within another one.

The article even finds the need to use the term "perfectly" in order to maintain what appears to be a slight of hand. Maybe, I'm misunderstanding or the logic holds better than it appears to? If being a product of human judgement sets us apart from discovering truth then so be it. But, if it doesn't; then where is the concern? We are often wrong and this is probably why; seems to corroborate the experience better than imagining a defect; just because.

As to the inference, are you suggesting that it's untrue that media posts treat vaccine safety as a binomial function, statements like "the vaccine is completely/totally safe" don't occur? — Isaac

I was suggesting you misrepresented Janus's post. His question of nothing to debate was in regards to your rhetoric; not the topic at large. Hence the debate.

Ah, so you do know the difference between rhetoric and claim. Or are you prepared to stand by this statement as the proven truth about 'the rest of the public's motives? — Isaac

Is this where you do the thing you are accusing me of doing? No, I don't pretend to speak for the world's population. I was just acknowledging not everyone needed stacks of evidence in order to make an assessment.

claims are the propositions followed by an indication of the source - a citation, a quote, a mention of the origin... something like that. — Isaac

What would this evidence even look like; constant demands for some unknown data that you can't seem to find on your own. Why do you demand some special degree of verification apart from what's publicly available.

In what way would that be a conspiracy? — Isaac

It is where one's ego conspires against one's mind to justify it's position.

Resonates with me at a deep level although I don't fancy myself as capable of contributing to the effort. I hope someone in my lifetime, what's left of it, has that Eureka moment ASAP and then... — TheMadFool

We're contributing to the average. Wisdom is simply an awareness of ones own ignorance. Chances are fairly good plenty of eureka moments have come and gone with no one noticing. I just hope to recognize a good idea when I hear one.

Is it something to do with society of the city state that Plato was alive in, where philosophy was discussed in an open public forum . Pierre Hadot criticizes modern philosophy for becoming an abstract, theoretical enterprise, an ivory tower pursuit, unlike a living public forum like it was in ancient times. — Ross Campbell

Yes, if it can be done in a pure form. Debate in a public forum quickly turns into a performance in the context of a contest. Philosophy should want to be done in the same fashion the beginner learns to play chess. Both players want to be right or want to win but it's understood the process of making moves and collecting losses is what builds intelligence. I think it can be studied on an individual basis, but if there is some way to conduct it without having to separate egos and good arguments then that is the best way to learn. Or simply if your chess teacher is always cheating then there's no reasonable expectation of progress.

Reacting in the way we see here, and on social media, to reasonable people presenting well-supported dissenting opinion is dangerously unhelpful. Depends if you want to debate that... — Isaac

You quoted out of context. The objection was to the lie you offered concerning 100% support. I'll pleasantly exchange a difference in opinion, but cheating the matter to support the false outrage isn't the same as variance in scientific perception of the facts.

The truth is the rest of the public had the same reservations and put themselves at risk for something greater than themselves. Demanding respect for a heightened phobia under the guise of reasonable and plainly emotionally charged discourse is the only conspiracy that is observable. Would you like to borrow a razor?

The fact that technology works is not relevant to the question at issue. Technology has very little to say about such questions although it obviously provides the medium across which it can be debated. — Wayfarer

By the same reason how does one say what is relevant? The default assumption that any observation imposes information that renders the observation invalid is circular and can't be supported by the very foundation which supposes it. Would the world look different in infrared? Sure. Would it change, no.

A moral case for taking the vaccine would have to show that it reduces the need for the use of health services and/or the rate of transmission relative to other strategies, and to a greater extent that other lifestyle choices we already consider morally irrelevant. — Isaac

It reduces the rate of transmission more than any "lifestyle choice". Unless you are wondering around not exhaling. The moral question is whether publicly justifying yourself for your own self-satisfaction is worth the possibility of misleading others. Simply, suppose your wrong and just making yourself feel better with these epic debates. What benefit is it to anyone else? What harm, is arguably non-trivial.

You acknowledged the lizard people camp is in full support. Is that not reason enough to take a step back?

It's like it's being framed using a theory of mind we should all have discarded by the age of about three. We have different minds, yes? So in the minds of the people refusing the vaccine, it is not serving the common good. — Isaac

Your mind dictating reality again? It is considered from a collective point of view because the pandemic operates on a collective level. Covid isn't your personal interruption, it is everyone's problem.

↪Cheshire The aim is to remove, or at the least minimise, the biases caused by taking a limited perspective. — Banno

The other poster seems to think the function of being any perspective is enough to restrict an objective observation. Seems narrow.

Inter-subjective validation. The ‘view from nowhere’. It’s still a view. — Wayfarer

Right. It's aggregated, obtainable. There isn't going to be a case where an anti-omni observation is selectable. So, we describe a sense different than simply a single individual, but not without the unknown error of being one. Pragmatic objectivity.

Not nonsense, just legally wrong. But it's true, I do use it to refer to workers (rather than shareholders) being the "owners" of the company, because that's the conventional view and common language. But yes, legally speak it's not correct. — Xtrix

Always happy to disagree with an honest person. Cheers.

Any point of view is still a point of view. — Wayfarer

It's qualified, the access implies subjugation of the effect.

Right. 'All' would be a nonsense way of saying things.

That would be my assessment as well.

An alternative would be to consider the universe from any point of view. That is, to consider the world in a way such that the particular perspective becomes irrelevant. — Banno

It seems like you could about build a philosophy on this alone. Interesting you said any and not all. Seeing something two or more ways at once wouldn't be a normal or obtainable way to see things. Could you take it a step further and say see what doesn't change between any perspectives. Or might that be too narrow?